ebay_get_payout_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the required sell.finances scope (an auth need) and the geographic restriction that split payouts are only available to mainland China sellers via Payoneer + bank account. The absence of any return-format/pagination note is a minor gap for a zero-param read 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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the returned fields, then layers in the sibling relationship, availability constraints, and scope in a tight three-sentence block. The '(Account API v2 getPayoutSettings)' reference is the only slightly decorative element and is harmless.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields, and it covers the auth scope and regional availability. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and understand what it yields.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing schema-side to describe. The description does reference instrumentId, but that is an output field consumed by ebay_update_payout_percentage rather than an input here.

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 (Get) and resource (seller's payout instruments), and enumerates the concrete fields returned (ID, type, status, nickname, last four digits) plus split-payout percentages. This is clearly distinguishable from other payout-related siblings like ebay_get_payout or ebay_get_payouts, which describe different resources.

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?

Names the related sibling ebay_update_payout_percentage and the condition (use instrumentId, only ACTIVE instruments can receive split payouts), giving clear operational context. It does not explicitly contrast with the many other payout siblings (ebay_get_payout, ebay_get_payouts, ebay_get_payout_summary), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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