ebay_get_transactions

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the empty-result behavior ('returns a success status with no data when nothing matches'), the required sell.finances scope, and a critical API limitation (Digital Signatures required for EU/UK sellers, not added by this server). The last item alone materially changes an agent's chance of success.

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 purpose before constraints, and each clause carries information. Slightly dense as a single paragraph and the 'last five years' range is repeated from the filter schema, but there is little genuine waste.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers auth scope, the digital-signature caveat, and empty-result behavior, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It does not describe the shape of returned transaction records, though that is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 sort, limit, offset, marketplaceId, and the complex filter syntax. The description only restates the filterable fields at a high level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('List') plus resource ('monetary transactions') and enumerates the transaction kinds covered (sales, refunds, credits, fees, transfers). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ebay_get_transaction_summary, ebay_get_payouts, and ebay_get_transfer.

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?

Gives clear operational context: which fields can be filtered (transactionDate, transactionType, buyerUsername, payoutId, orderId, transactionId), that paging uses limit/offset, and sorting is by date. It does not explicitly name alternatives to use instead (e.g., summary or payout tools), so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not bar.

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