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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description adds real operational context: a hard 14-day span cap and heavy throttling at 5 requests/min, plus the underlying endpoint. It stops short of describing pagination semantics or result ordering, which the schema partially covers.

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: returned fields first, then the hard constraint, then the operational throttle and endpoint. Every sentence carries information the agent needs and nothing is repeated.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned line fields, and it flags the two operational gotchas (date span, throttle). The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against list_sales/list_sales_by_date, which matters given how many list_* tools exist.

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 the baseline is 3; all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including paging defaults and kit/transfer-sale defaults. The description only restates the kit breakdown and transfer-sale options and the 14-day constraint, adding little beyond the structured fields.

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 (items sold) and enumerates the returned line fields (date, SKU, quantity, total price), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like skuvault_list_sales or skuvault_list_sales_by_date, which look overlapping.

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 implied by the 14-day date-range framing and the throttling note, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance and no mention of when to prefer skuvault_list_sales or skuvault_list_sales_by_date. The agent must infer the choice from names alone.

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