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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: 'Not paged by the vendor,' 'Heavy throttling (5/min),' and the underlying POST endpoint. These are operationally critical details an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary operation and statuses, followed by the lookup override, returned fields, pagination caveat, throttling warning, and endpoint. Every fragment carries operational value with no wasted prose.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the key returned data. Combined with explicit throttling, pagination behavior, endpoint details, and mode distinctions, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by clarifying that order_ids overrides status and that vendor pagination is absent, which contextualizes why skip/limit exist in the schema.

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 sales (orders)'), enumerates the two selectable statuses, and distinguishes a lookup-by-order-id mode where status is ignored. It also names the data returned (items, kits, shipping, contact info, totals), making it clearly identifiable among sibling list tools.

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?

Explains the two operating modes clearly: status-based listing with ReadyToShip as the default, or order_ids lookup with status ignored. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as skuvault_list_sales_by_date, so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternatives rubric.

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