ebay_get_category_policies

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get' implying read-only, but it does not mention required permissions, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid marketplaceId), or what happens if the marketplace has no policies. This is a significant gap for a fetching 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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 5 words, which is very concise. While it could benefit from more detail, the brevity avoids verbosity. Every word earns its place, but the underspecification prevents a higher score.

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 tool has 2 parameters (one optional) and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining return values, the meaning of 'category policies', and the effect of the filter parameter. It does none of this, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema—'filter' is just 'Filter criteria' and 'marketplaceId' is documented as an enum. The description does not elaborate on their purpose or relationship.

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 'Get category policies for a marketplace' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (category policies) with a scope ('for a marketplace'). While it distinguishes from sibling policy tools by specifying a different type of policy, it lacks context on what category policies entail (e.g., return policies vs. payment policies), which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ebay_get_return_policy or ebay_get_payment_policy. Given the abundance of sibling tools for various policies, the absence of usage context makes it harder for an agent to select the appropriate tool.

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