ebay_get_transfer

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

Despite readOnlyHint being present, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it clarifies that the tool does not move money, names the required OAuth scope, and explains the EU/UK Digital Signatures requirement including the specific environment variables EBAY_SIGNING_KEY_JWE and EBAY_SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY.

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 description is four tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and definition, then layers on ID discovery, read-only behavior, scope, and signing requirements in a logical order.

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 simple read-only lookup with two fully documented parameters and readOnlyHint annotations, the description covers purpose, discovery path, auth scope, and the unusual signing requirement. It does not describe the returned transaction shape, but no output schema exists and the core call requirements are all present.

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 both transferId and marketplaceId are already fully documented. The description reinforces how to obtain the transferId, but this duplicates the schema's own explanation rather than adding new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource (get one TRANSFER transaction) and immediately explains the domain meaning: the seller reimbursing eBay, e.g. for a buyer refund. It also distinguishes this from the broader ebay_get_transactions sibling by naming the required transactionType filter.

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 explicitly routes the agent to ebay_get_transactions to find IDs and tells it to filter transactionType:{TRANSFER}. It also gives clear when-not guidance via the schema note that other transaction types return 404, and states the required sell.finances scope.

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