ebay_refresh_access_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that tokens must already be set and that it returns a new access token and expiry. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., old token invalidation), rate limits, or failure modes (e.g., expired refresh token). For a simple token refresh, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It conveys purpose, use cases, and prerequisites without any extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage, and return value. The mention of prerequisites and recovery scenarios adds completeness. It could mention that a valid refresh token is required, but this is implied by the prerequisite statement.

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 zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter information beyond what is already present. With 100% schema coverage (nothing to cover), the baseline score of 4 applies as the description does not compete with the schema.

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 'refresh' and the resource 'user access token'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'manual' refresh and mentions recovery from auth errors, which differentiates it from other token-related tools like ebay_get_token_status or ebay_validate_token_expiry.

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 explicit usage scenarios: proactive refresh before expiry or recovery from auth errors. It also mentions a prerequisite (tokens must be set via .env or ebay_set_user_tokens_with_expiry). While it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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