books_get_sales_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds prerequisites (Books access with sales order read permissions) and error recovery advice, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose response format, rate limits, or edge-case behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by concise labeled sections (Prerequisites, Next Steps, Workflow, Error Recovery). Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 having no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, workflow, and error recovery, while the schema fully documents parameters. Minor gap: no mention of return value structure, but the tool's role in the lifecycle is clear enough.

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% with all 11 parameters described. The description only mentions 'filtering and pagination' at a high level, adding no specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states 'Get all sales orders from Books with filtering and pagination', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like books_get_invoices or books_get_estimates.

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 workflow context ('Sales order management → invoice conversion → payment tracking') and next steps ('Use books_create_invoice to convert sales orders to invoices'), implying when this tool is the entry point. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but places the tool within the sales order lifecycle.

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