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

Far beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the API-key requirement, ordering, exact returned fields, the buyer-wallet privacy guarantee, the review_status state machine (can_rate/rated/not_verified), and the shared-human edge case where a review counts 0 with a `why` reason. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 answer ('What you sold ... newest first') and packed with genuinely useful detail, but the long em-dash-and-semicolon paragraph is dense and mixes return-value and review-workflow content, making it slightly heavy to parse.

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-value burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating fields, review states, and trust marking. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 single `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'newest first' restates rather than extends the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific resource and direction ('What you sold ... each verified or pending purchase of your listings'), which clearly separates it from the buy-side sibling myPurchases without naming it. It is clear, but the differentiation from siblings is implicit rather than explicit.

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 explains usage context well: sales on hosted listings appear automatically while seller-run links need recordPurchase, and it routes to review() via purchase_id. It does not explicitly name an alternative for viewing purchases you made (myPurchases), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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