Get Sales

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read operation. No contradictions. The description adds behavioral context (date range, status filters) but omits pagination behavior. However, given annotations cover safety, further detail is not critical.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the action and filters; the second provides use cases. Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description hints at output content (revenue, products, refunds). Parameter count is high but all optional, and the description covers the main filter categories. Slight omission of pagination details, but adequate for a read-only tool.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into conceptual categories (date, email, lead ID, product tag, recurring/refund status), which helps the agent understand the tool's capabilities beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('sales records'), lists multiple filter options, and explicitly states use cases (check revenue, see products sold, track refunds). Distinguishes from sibling mutation tools like hyros_refund_order and hyros_delete_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 provides clear use cases (check revenue, product sales, refunds) but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for specific needs. Still, the context is adequate for selecting the tool.

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