ebay_get_payments_program_onboarding

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: deprecation status and OAuth scope requirements. There is no contradiction between annotations and description. It doesn't detail response contents, but for a simple getter with readOnlyHint, the added context is sufficient.

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 two short sentences, with the core purpose first, followed by the critical deprecation note and OAuth scopes. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter getter with readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential operational details: deprecation, OAuth scopes, and purpose. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't explain return format—a minor gap for a deprecated informational endpoint. Overall, enough context for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get payments program onboarding information.' The tool name already makes this clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'ebay_get_payments_program,' and the deprecation note is the only distinguishing behavioral hint. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context by noting the method is deprecated because all accounts are enabled for the new payment flow. This tells the agent this tool should generally be avoided. It also specifies required OAuth scopes, which is essential for invocation. It does not name an alternative tool, but the deprecation message effectively communicates when not to use it.

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