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

Annotations already declare this as a non-destructive read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by stating the default ordering ('Newest first as Street orders them'), pagination controls, and the endpoint ('GET /sales'), but it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or detailed return/pagination metadata behavior.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it identifies the resource, defines the sale record, then states ordering/pagination and endpoint. It is appropriately sized, though the 'GET /sales' fragment is marginally redundant for an MCP tool invocation.

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 tool with ten optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers identity, default ordering, and pagination. However, it does not mention the available filtering/embedding capabilities or clarify when to select this tool over sibling sales-related list/get tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 all ten parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions only page and page_size, adding no meaning beyond the schema for branch, status, include, trashed, or date filters; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sales'), and clarifies what a sale is by naming its progression fields: agreed price, buyer, vendor, solicitors, status. It is clear enough to distinguish a sale record from unrelated resources, but it does not explicitly distinguish this list endpoint from close siblings such as street_list_sales_offers, street_list_sales_instructions, or street_get_sale.

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 description explains ordering and pagination ('Newest first as Street orders them; page with page and page_size') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling list/get tools. An agent must infer the use case from the resource name alone, with no stated alternatives or exclusions.

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