ebay_get_return_policy

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details such as return format, error handling, or rate limits. For a simple get-by-ID, this is minimally sufficient but does not go beyond the annotation; it only confirms the read nature of the 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and input requirement. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient for an agent to 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?

For a tool with a single required parameterable and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. It does not specify the response shape, but no output schema exists so an agent might need to infer the return policy structure. However, this is a standard get-by-ID operation, and the tool name plus description give enough context to invoke it correctly. Missing explicit details about response contents lower it slightly from a 5.

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 covers 100% of the parameter, and the description 'return policy ID' matches the schema's own description. The description's 'by ID' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is earned, but there is no extra semantic nuance or format detail given.

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 resource ('return policy'), and qualifies it with 'specific' and 'by ID', which clearly distinguishes it from listing all return policies (ebay_get_return_policies) or fetching by name (ebay_get_return_policy_by_name). The agent can confidently know this tool retrieves a single return policy identified by its ID.

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 clearly implies the usage context: use this tool when you already have the return policy ID. Sibling tools like ebay_get_return_policy_by_name provide natural alternatives, but the description does not explicitly mention them or provide exclusion criteria. Still, the 'by ID' phrasing gives an unambiguous condition of use.

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