ebay_get_transaction_summary

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful operational traits: the sell.finances scope requirement, that on-hold payments are included in the totals, and crucially that EU/UK sellers require Digital Signatures which this server does not add – a real limitation an agent must know about. It stops short of describing return shape or pagination, but adds genuine context annotations do not provide.

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 purpose, then adds prerequisites and the digital-signature caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the filter example is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be trimmed.

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 read-only finance summary with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description supplies the essential auth scope and a critical EU/UK limitation. The main gap is return-value/pagination behavior, which is minor given no output schema exists to constrain it.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description restates the required transactionStatus criterion (already in the schema) and adds nothing about marketplaceId or filter syntax beyond what the schema provides.

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 (transaction summary), and clarifies the payload as cumulative counts and amounts from the eBay Finances API, which distinguishes it from the sibling ebay_get_transactions (individual transactions). However, it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 conveys prerequisites (transactionStatus criterion required, sell.finances scope needed) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names alternatives like ebay_get_transactions or ebay_get_seller_funds_summary. Usage context is inferable from the required filter and scope, but not spelled out.

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