ebay_get_regulatory_policies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention authentication, read-only nature, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., invalid marketplaceId). The only behavioral hint is that it 'gets' data, implying a read operation.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it is overly minimal and could include additional context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 annotations, output schema, and the presence of two parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what regulatory policies are returned, how to use the filter, or any prerequisites (e.g., authentication). More detail is needed for effective agent usage.

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% description coverage for both parameters (marketplaceId and filter). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'for a marketplace'. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.

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 'Get regulatory policies for a marketplace' clearly states the tool's verb and resource, and the term 'regulatory' distinguishes it from sibling policy tools (e.g., get_category_policies, get_fulfillment_policy). However, it does not specify what type of regulatory policies or clarify the scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose get_regulatory_policies versus other policy-related sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or context.

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