ebay_refresh_access_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires pre-set tokens and returns a new access token and expiry time. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., invalidating the old token), rate limits, or security implications. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise at three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with usage context, prerequisite, and return value. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, prerequisite, and what it returns. It is complete for the complexity level.

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 (empty properties), so schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the behavior and return values, but there is no parameter information needed beyond what the schema indicates.

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: 'Manually refresh the user access token using the stored refresh token.' It uses a specific verb (refresh) and resource (access token), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on token refresh, which is unique among the listed sibling names.

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 clear guidance on when to use: 'useful when you want to proactively refresh an access token before it expires, or when recovering from authentication errors.' It also states a prerequisite: 'Requires that user tokens are already set...' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the use cases are well-defined.

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