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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description contributes the set of returned fields (number, date, client, status, totals), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite cursor/limit params, which keeps it at an adequate 3.

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?

One short line with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded ahead of the field list. The tradeoff is that it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, which slightly weakens how actionable it reads.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, most of the burden is already carried by structured fields, and enumerating return fields compensates for the missing output schema. What is missing is pagination guidance and any disambiguation from get_sales_summary, which an agent needs to call this correctly in a crowded sibling set.

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%, with from/to/limit/cursor all documented including defaults and the cursor contract, so the description carries no param burden. Its only nod to parameters is 'in a date range', which restates what 'from'/'to' already say. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Names a specific resource (sales/invoices) and the scope (a date range) plus the fields returned, so an agent can tell it retrieves itemized invoice records. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_sales_summary, so the 4 tier applies rather than 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, even though get_sales_summary sits right next to it and is the obvious confusion point between a raw list and an aggregate. The agent must infer the distinction from the names alone.

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