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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, yet the description still adds real value: it warns that part-sale IDs may be negative and that resource visibility depends on the API key's permissions. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or default result ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operational scope before the ID quirk. The phrase 'as shown in the vendor reference' is a slight distraction but costs little.

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 and six loosely documented parameters, the description should clarify what the status/writer filters accept and how paging works. It covers the safety profile and ID quirk adequately but leaves filtering and pagination behavior to guesswork.

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 only 17% – just shopId is documented in the schema – so the description carries most of the burden. It only clarifies that partSaleId can be negative and says nothing about status, writer, page, or pageSize semantics, leaving four of six parameters unexplained.

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?

Names a specific resource (part sales) and the attributes reviewed (balances and statuses), and explicitly scopes out payments and sale mutations. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like shopboss_list_parts or shopboss_list_order_parts, so an agent must infer which list to pick.

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?

'Review part-sale balances and statuses without taking payments or changing sales' implies a read-only review context, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not condition is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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