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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a read-only listing, and the description adds behavior beyond annotations: the default date field is completeTime, include_lines toggles the SaleLines relation, and pagination is driven by next_url. It does not disclose rate limits or default page size behavior beyond the schema, keeping it at 4.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: return fields first, then filtering, then pagination and endpoint, with no filler sentences. The leading field enumeration is slightly redundant given the absent output schema, but it earns its place by compensating for that gap.

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?

With 13 optional parameters, no output schema, and no destructive behavior, the description covers what matters: return shape, filterable dimensions, default date semantics, relation includes, and pagination. Missing only peripheral behavior such as rate limits or error conditions.

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 the parameters are already documented with patterns, enums and defaults. The description adds only marginal value beyond the schema—reiterating the filter set, the completeTime default for date_field, and that include_lines means items sold—so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Sales history' listing) and enumerates exactly what is returned (saleID, completed/voided flags, completeTime, totals, customerID, employeeID, shopID, registerID). The plural 'list' plus the pagination hint distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling get_sale, which fetches a single record.

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?

Gives clear context for use: filter by date range on completeTime (default) or timeStamp, plus shop/customer/employee, and set include_lines only when line items are needed. It never explicitly contrasts itself with get_sale for single-record lookups or states exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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