ebay_accept_payment_dispute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the action (accept) and consequence (refund), but does not describe side effects (e.g., dispute closure, reversibility, or impact on evidence). The required OAuth scope is mentioned, but other behavioral traits like the need for a return address (as seen in the schema) are not explained. The description is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 OAuth scope. Every sentence adds value (purpose, condition to use, required permissions). There is no redundant information, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context. It covers the core purpose but omits key details: the returnAddress parameter's dependence on dispute type (ITEM_NOT_RECEIVED), the revisionNumber for optimistic locking, and what the return value looks like. The description is minimally complete but insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage without schema inspection.

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% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3, as the schema already provides sufficient parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Accept a payment dispute and allow eBay to refund the buyer.' It specifies the verb ('accept'), the resource ('payment dispute'), and the outcome ('refund the buyer'). The condition 'Use this when you agree with the buyer claim' helps distinguish it from the sibling tool 'ebay_contest_payment_dispute', making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 a clear condition for use: 'Use this when you agree with the buyer claim.' This implies that the alternative (contesting) should be used when disagreeing. While it does not explicitly name the sibling tool 'ebay_contest_payment_dispute', the context of sibling tools and the condition give sufficient guidance. However, it could be more explicit about when not to use it and what prerequisites are needed (e.g., having the dispute ID).

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