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 two useful behavioral facts not present in structured fields: results are ordered newest first and map to a specific GET endpoint. It says nothing about pagination continuation or reply truncation, which the schema handles but which materially affect usage.

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?

Two compact sentences, zero filler, with the purpose and ordering front-loaded before the endpoint detail. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 is the only place an agent could learn what a sales record contains, and it says nothing about the shape or fields of the response. Purpose, ordering, and safety are adequately covered, but the paging model (page/limit/offset with next_page/next_offset continuation) and return contents are left entirely to the schema or to inference.

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 four parameters (including page/limit/offset continuation semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the customers_id target, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list the sales) plus a precise scope (made to one customer) and an ordering guarantee (newest first), which implicitly separates it from the broader sale-listing siblings. It does not name those siblings, but the scope is distinctive enough for an agent to disambiguate.

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 per-customer scoping implies when the tool is appropriate (history for a known customer id), but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer it over hiboutik_get_sale, hiboutik_list_closed_sales, or hiboutik_list_open_sales, and no prerequisites are stated.

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