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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility, the gated path for finalized documents, and the non-reissuance of BOS numbers, so the agent understands the consequence of leaving a gap in the series. It omits permissions/auth requirements and any response behavior, but the substantive deletion semantics are covered.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and selector, then the conditional rule, then the lasting consequence. No filler or redundancy.

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 an unannotated delete tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: how to target the record, the confirmation gate, and irreversibility. Only auth/permission expectations and any error behavior are left unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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%, so a baseline of 3 would be defensible, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains why confirm_finalized exists (the local copy may correspond to a record the buyer holds) rather than merely restating that it must be true for finalized documents.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (delete) and resource (bill of sale) with the key selector (BOS number), which cleanly separates it from siblings like sale_finalize, sale_get, or sale_update. An agent can route here without opening the schema.

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 the conditional branch that governs usage: drafts delete outright, finalized documents require confirm_finalized=true. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to delete, but the draft-vs-finalized rule is concrete operational guidance.

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