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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns. Beyond annotations, it adds behavioral context: it lists only 'successful' sales (not failed or pending), sorts by 'most recent first', and explains pagination via page_key. It also notes the authentication requirement. These details enrich the safety profile without contradicting the annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence captures the core purpose, the second adds filter/pagination context, and the third provides the REST endpoint. No extraneous information; every sentence 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 list operation with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the scope (successful sales, most recent first), filter capabilities, pagination, and REST reference. It does not detail the return structure, but the simplicity of the operation and full schema coverage make this acceptable.

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 all six parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description merely summarizes the filter types (date, email, product/order) and pagination cursor, which adds little beyond the schema. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not introduce new semantic depth.

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 clearly states the action ('List/filter'), the resource ('the authenticated user's successful sales'), and the ordering ('most recent first'). It also specifies key capabilities (date, email, product/order filters, cursor pagination) and the underlying REST endpoint, making it unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like gumroad_get_sale.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list/filter successful sales, with support for date/email/product/order filters and pagination. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., gumroad_get_sale for a single sale), but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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