ebay_issue_refund

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the action and required OAuth scope but omits behavioral traits such as irreversibility, effect on order status, buyer notification, or seller standards impact. This is insufficient for a funding mutation tool.

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: two sentences plus the scope requirement, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place, providing purpose and essential prerequisite information.

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 presence of a nested input schema and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and scope. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., refund ID) and prerequisites (e.g., order must be confirmed), leaving gaps for the AI agent to infer.

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%; the description adds context by summarizing 'refund amount and reason' but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 verb 'Issue' and resource 'refund for an eBay order', specifying full or partial refunds. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that may also involve financial transactions, though the name itself provides 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 states 'Use this to refund buyers for orders', which implies when to use it. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use it nor mentions alternative tools like ebay_accept_payment_dispute for dispute-related refunds.

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