ebay_get_payouts

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses real operational constraints: the required sell.finances scope, the fact that EU/UK Finances calls need Digital Signatures this server does not add (a silent-failure risk), and that empty results return a success status with no data. Rate limits and response shape are not covered, but the auth and edge-case disclosures are genuinely useful.

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-loaded with the core action and resource, then scope/filters/edge cases in short clauses. Some sentences restate schema content (filters, paging, sort), so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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 carries the return burden and does note the empty-result success behavior; it also covers auth scope and the Digital Signature limitation. It stops short of describing pagination totals or the full payout object, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 all five parameters in detail. The description only summarizes the same filters (payoutDate range, payoutStatus, limit/offset, sort by payoutDate), adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema. 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 (List seller payouts) plus the source API and the five-year window. It does not explicitly route against the closest siblings (ebay_get_payout singular, ebay_get_payout_summary, ebay_get_transactions), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Filter and paging options are described, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many payout/transaction siblings. 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.