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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that this is a safe read operation. The description adds date-range scoping and the Portuguese 'vendas' clarification, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior like pagination limits (skip/take), potential empty results, or any performance considerations, relying mostly on 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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action (list sales) and scope (date range). It includes a helpful Portuguese translation 'vendas' in parentheses for clarity. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotation coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It introduces the date range but fails to explain pagination (skip/take) and account filtering, which are key for users to retrieve the correct data. Given the complexity of the schema, the description should provide more guidance on how to structure queries.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It mentions date range (start_date, end_date) but does not explain skip/take pagination or account filtering. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, and with zero coverage, the agent has limited guidance on how to use parameters correctly.

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 'List sales (vendas) over a date range' clearly states the tool's action (list) and resource (sales/vendas), and the date range scope is explicit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like evo_sales_create (which creates sales) and other list tools (evo_member_list, evo_list_accounts), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for retrieving sales within a date range, which is clear enough. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like evo_sales_create or other reporting tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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