ebay_get_order_earnings_summary

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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses the optional scope that is not requested by default (with remediation steps), eligibility restrictions (approved US/CN/HK sellers with USD payouts), and a hard caveat that EU/UK calls require Digital Signatures this server does not add. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the prerequisite and caveat sentences. The auth/eligibility sentences are dense but each earns its place given the Finances API's access complexity; nothing is padded.

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?

For a finance tool with unusual auth and geographic constraints, the description covers the tricky prerequisites thoroughly, and with no output schema the return values need not be explained. The only gap is the absence of tie-breaking guidance against its close siblings.

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%, so the schema already documents both filter and marketplaceId. The description restates the orderCreationDate range and past-year default without adding syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get aggregated order earnings') plus a scope constraint ('for orders created in an orderCreationDate range'). The word 'aggregated' hints at how it differs from ebay_get_order_earnings and ebay_get_order_earnings_by_id, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It notes the date range defaults to the past year and lists prerequisites (scope, seller eligibility), but never says when to choose this over ebay_get_order_earnings or ebay_get_order_earnings_by_id. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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