List POS Sales

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as pagination behavior or result ordering, which would be valuable given the two pagination methods (offset/limit and cursor).

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 two sentences (English and Spanish), highly concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and no fluff. Ideal for quick scanning.

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?

While the purpose is clear, the description lacks details about default behavior (e.g., date range defaults), pagination method choice (cursor vs offset/limit), and result ordering. Given the output schema exists and parameters are well-documented, the description is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description does not need to explain parameters further. The parameter descriptions in the schema are clear and bilingual, providing sufficient semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning.

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?

Description clearly states verb (List), resource (POS sales), and key filtering dimensions (date range, terminal, status). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like list_invoices or list_transactions.

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?

Description mentions optional filters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as search invoices or list transactions. No exclusions or typical use cases are given.

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