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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying 'permanently' and emphasizing 'requires explicit user confirmation'. This goes beyond the annotation by disclosing the irreversibility and the confirmation requirement, which is not captured elsewhere. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. The action and key constraint (permanence and confirmation) are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple delete operation given the annotations and full schema coverage. However, it lacks any reference to the alternative void_sales_receipt and does not explain the consequences of deleting (e.g., impact on linked transactions). This is a notable gap for a destructive action with a closely related sibling.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description adds little beyond that. The phrase 'explicit user confirmation' hints at the confirm parameter but does not elaborate on its semantics beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and resource 'sales receipt', and adds 'permanently' to indicate severity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling void_sales_receipt, which is a common alternative for sales receipts. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like void_sales_receipt. It only states a requirement (explicit user confirmation) but does not explain the conditions under which deletion is appropriate or when voiding is preferred. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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