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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by identifying the API endpoint and summarizing the returned data (items, payments, totals), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 two tight sentences with the core purpose and returned data front-loaded. Every phrase adds value and there is no filler.

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 simple read-only lookup with two fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose, endpoint, and return content. It could be slightly richer about cancellation behavior or response shape, but it is adequate without an output schema.

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%, so the parameters codigo and listarCanceladas are already documented. The endpoint path with {codigo} loosely reinforces that codigo identifies the sale, but the description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource: get full data of one sale. It distinguishes from the sibling list tool by emphasizing a single sale and detailing the returned data categories (items, payments, totals).

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: use this to retrieve one sale's complete record after obtaining its code. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or a named alternative such as egestor_list_sales.

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