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

Annotations only supply the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive); the description adds genuinely load-bearing behavior: a hard 7-day maximum date span, heavy throttling at 5 requests/minute, the underlying POST /sales/getSalesByDate endpoint, and the shape of what comes back. The rate-limit disclosure in particular materially changes how an agent should plan calls.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler: payload contents, date-field modes, the 7-day limit, usage signal, throttle, and endpoint. The scoping constraint and payload listing are front-loaded where the agent will see them first.

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?

For a 7-parameter read with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by enumerating the returned data, and it covers the two riskiest operational facts (7-day cap, 5/min throttle); pagination mechanics are handled by the schema. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation, which is a usage concern rather than missing behavioral context.

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%, so every parameter including page/skip/limit/page_size and the date_field enum is already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only a light restatement of the two date_field modes and the 7-day span, which the schema already states verbatim on `to`.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Sales within a date range') and enumerates the payload fields returned (items, kits, fulfillment quantities, shipping, contact info, totals), which goes well beyond restating the title. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools skuvault_list_sales or skuvault_list_sold_items, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'The most common way to pull orders' implies a default/primary use, and the 7-day window is stated as a hard constraint. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer skuvault_list_sales or skuvault_list_sold_items instead, leaving the selection among three similar siblings to inference.

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