ebay_get_transfer

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint with three behavioral facts an agent cannot get from structured fields: it does not move money, it requires the sell.finances scope, and eBay mandates Digital Signatures on Finances calls for EU/UK sellers that this server does not supply. The last point is a genuine failure-mode warning for a specific seller segment.

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 resource and its meaning, then the ID-discovery path, then caveats. Nearly every clause earns its place, though 'Read-only; does not move money' partially restates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Covers purpose, auth scope, and the significant EU/UK signing caveat for a tool with no output schema, which is the main risk an agent must know. It stops short of describing what the returned transfer record contains, a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 the schema already documents both transferId (with the 404 caveat for other types) and marketplaceId. The description only restates that the ID comes from a TRANSFER-filtered transaction list, adding little beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get one TRANSFER transaction') and defines the domain term inline ('the seller reimbursing eBay, e.g. for a buyer refund'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling that lists everything, so an agent can tell it apart from ebay_get_transactions without opening the schema.

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?

Tells the agent how to obtain the required ID (use ebay_get_transactions with filter transactionType:{TRANSFER}), which is a concrete usage path. It does not, however, contrast itself with other single-resource finance getters (e.g. ebay_get_payout), so the exclusionary guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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