ebay_get_payments_program

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions required OAuth scopes (sell.account.readonly or sell.account) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as response format, rate limits, or potential errors. The description is too sparse to adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, using only three sentences to convey purpose, deprecation status, and OAuth requirements. There is no wasteful language, and the structure is efficient for an agent to quickly parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., status details). It does not provide this information, leaving the agent without crucial context about the response. The deprecation notice is helpful but insufficient to make the tool description complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with both parameters described (marketplaceId with enum values, paymentsProgramType as a string). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as getting the payments program status for a marketplace. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('payments program status'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the unique resource and deprecation note provide some distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description notes that the tool is deprecated and that all seller accounts have been enabled for the new flow, implying it may not be needed. However, it fails to provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The deprecation warning is a weak usage signal.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.