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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open world), and the description adds genuinely new context: the composition of the returned object (line items, payments, taxes, customer, employee) and that verbosity defaults to full. It doesn't cover error behavior for a missing id, which keeps it from a 5.

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, return contents front-loaded, endpoint appended as a trailing reference. 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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the nested entities returned, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. It lacks guidance on what happens for an invalid or unknown sale id, the one remaining gap.

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% and the sale_id description already explains it is the receipt number findable via phppos_list_sales. The description only restates that verbosity defaults to full, which the enum schema also declares, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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 ('get') and resource ('one sale by id') and enumerates what the payload contains (line items, payments, taxes, customer, employee). It does not explicitly name phppos_list_sales as the alternative, but the singular scope makes the distinction inferable.

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 only implied: 'one sale by id' signals a single-record lookup versus a list, but the description never says when to prefer this over phppos_list_sales. The pointer to phppos_list_sales for finding the id lives in the schema, not the description.

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