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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: results are ordered newest first and each receipt carries line items, payments, discounts and taxes. It does not mention pagination behavior or result-size limits, though the cursor parameter in the schema hints at it.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then the filter/usage note. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned payload components and ordering, and the 100%-covered schema handles all 12 filter parameters. The only gap is explicit pagination guidance, which is inferable from the cursor parameter but not stated.

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% across all 12 parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only loosely restates the filter axes (store, time range, receipt numbers) and adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema documents, 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 (List) and resource (sales and refund receipts) plus scope details: newest-first ordering and included line items, payments, discounts and taxes. This cleanly separates it from loyverse_get_receipt, which fetches a single receipt.

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 ('the core of any sales question') and enumerates the filter axes (store, time range, receipt numbers). It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer a sibling such as loyverse_get_receipt for a single record or which filter combination is appropriate.

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