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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the lower bar applies. The description goes beyond them by describing the response shape – amounts, status, location, and nested payment transactions with amount/paid-at/method – which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the identifier, the returned fields, and the underlying endpoint path, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return payload, including the nested payment transaction fields an agent would otherwise have to guess. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for unknown ids, but the essential calling information is present.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('AgendaPro sale id.'). The description adds only 'by id', which conveys no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One sale by id') and enumerates the returned content (amounts, status, location, payment transactions), which clearly distinguishes it from the list_sales sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool, so it falls just 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?

Usage is implied by the 'by id' framing – an agent infers this is the single-record lookup counterpart to agendapro_list_sales. However there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite guidance, so it remains minimum viable rather than instructive.

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