ebay_get_payout_summary

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses two operationally important facts: the required sell.finances scope and the caveat that eBay requires Digital Signatures on Finances calls for EU/UK sellers which this server does not add. That limitation materially affects whether calls succeed, which is exactly the kind of context annotations do not carry.

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 purpose and returned aggregates are front-loaded, followed by the auth requirement and the signature caveat. It is a compact, well-ordered two-sentence-plus structure with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned aggregates, and it covers prerequisites (scope) and a key failure mode (missing Digital Signatures for EU/UK). For a two-parameter read tool this is close to complete, though pagination/limits are unmentioned.

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 fully documents both the filter criteria and marketplaceId. The description only restates the filterable dimensions at a high level, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (get cumulative payout totals) and enumerates the returned aggregates: payout count, related transaction count, and total amount, plus the available filters. It is clear and distinguishable from a plain list tool, but it never names a sibling (e.g. ebay_get_payouts or ebay_get_seller_funds_summary), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 states the optional filtering (payoutDate range, one payoutStatus), which implies when the tool applies, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to the many sibling payout/earnings/transaction tools. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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