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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a fixed JSON GET endpoint (implying read-only) and that the company must be explicit, but it omits pagination, authentication, rate-limit, and response-shape behavior.

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 three short, front-loaded clauses with no filler. Each clause conveys an operational constraint or pointer.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter listing tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential calling constraints: company requirement, flat query structure, and where to find filters. Pagination and ordering details are not covered, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 0% and the schema uses an opaque anyOf object for query, so the description must add meaning. It does clarify that company_name must be explicit and that query fields are flat, with filters documented via describe_nextesy_operation, but it does not enumerate or explain the query fields.

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 identifies the resource and operation via the endpoint 'GET /api/v1/sales/purchases', making it clear this lists purchases. It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings such as get_purchase or get_purchase_payments, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states that an explicit company is required but gives no guidance on when to use this listing tool versus get_purchase, get_purchase_payments, or other alternatives. The pointer to describe_nextesy_operation is for filter discovery, not tool selection.

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