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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the underlying HTTP endpoint and reiterates that include drives embedded related records, but says nothing about return shape, missing-record behavior, or whether includes add cost. Modest value beyond structured fields.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the core behavior (single sale by UUID) is front-loaded and the include behavior and endpoint follow as supporting detail.

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?

A simple read tool with full annotation coverage, a fully documented 2-parameter schema and no output schema — the description gives enough to call it correctly. Only the response shape (what a returned sale/included payload looks like) is left unstated, which is minor here.

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% and the include enum is fully documented in the schema, so the description's mention of 'the related records you ask for in include' adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('One sale by UUID') and scopes it against the listing siblings implicitly via the UUID lookup. The REST path GET /sales/{id} reinforces it. It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative, but an agent can tell this is a single-record fetch.

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: use when you already have a sale UUID and optionally want related records embedded. It notes the UUID source indirectly (schema says 'from street_list_sales'), but the description itself offers no when-not conditions or explicit pointer to street_list_sales.

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