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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the response — the exact status values (partially_paid, paid, canceled, refunded), the paid/pending amount fields and included payment transactions — which tells the agent what data it will actually receive.

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 front-loaded sentence plus the endpoint: the verb and resource come first, then return fields, then filters. The parenthetical status enumeration is dense but earns its place; nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-shape burden — and it does by naming the returned fields and payment transactions, while pagination is fully covered by the schema. Minor gaps (sort order, amount semantics, empty-result behavior) remain but do not block correct invocation.

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 all six parameters (including pagination and the date format pattern) are already documented. The description only restates the filter dimensions without adding semantics such as timezone handling for paid_at_start/paid_at_end or how ordering works, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"List sales (ventas)" is a specific verb plus resource, and the description immediately enumerates the fields returned (status, amounts, paid-at, location, client id, transactions), so an agent knows exactly what entity it gets. It does not name the sibling agendapro_get_sale or explain the list-vs-single distinction, which keeps it 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?

"Filter by paid date range, location or client" implies when this tool is useful, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over agendapro_get_sale, nor any exclusion or prerequisite (e.g. required scopes, when results are empty).

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