ebay_get_return_policies

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the seller scope, such as whether the result is a list, whether policies are filtered by the required marketplaceId, or what fields are returned. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. For a one-parameter getter, this length is appropriately concise.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with one fully documented parameter, the definition is minimally viable. However, with no output schema, the description could usefully clarify that it returns a list of return policies, that the seller identity comes from the authenticated context, and that marketplaceId selects the eBay marketplace. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 coverage is 100%: the single required marketplaceId parameter has a full enum and a short description ('eBay marketplace ID'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('return policies for the seller'), so the core purpose is understandable. It stops short of full differentiation because it doesn't explicitly say it lists all of the seller's policies, and it could be confused with singular siblings like ebay_get_return_policy or ebay_get_return_policy_by_name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many related policy tools, such as ebay_get_return_policy, ebay_get_return_policy_by_name, ebay_get_return_policy_metadata, or ebay_create_return_policy. Given the large sibling list, the absence of any selection criteria is a significant gap.

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