sale_getRead one bill of sale in full by its BOS number: both parties, the item and its identifiers, price, terms, and whether it is still a draft or the finalized signing copy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sale | Yes | The bill of sale id, e.g. BOS-2026-0001 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by disclosing the returned content fields, including party names, item identifiers, price, terms, and draft/finalized status.
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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and key, then efficiently enumerates the returned content. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description compensates by clearly indicating the return contents. Combined with a single well-documented parameter and safety-bearing annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.
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%, and the schema already documents the parameter as 'The bill of sale id, e.g. BOS-2026-0001'. The description adds the phrase 'by its BOS number', reinforcing the identifier semantics, but contributes little beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('one bill of sale'), retrieval key ('BOS number'), and scope ('in full'). It enumerates exactly what content is included, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sale_list, sale_summary, and sale_render.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the full details of a single bill of sale are needed by its BOS number. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the 'in full' and 'one bill of sale' language gives clear context against the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.