invoice_processing__list_inventory_sales_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate these. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing MCP-server throttling limits and recommending caching to avoid hitting those limits. This goes beyond the annotations and provides actionable information about rate limiting, which is crucial for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide the critical organizationId source and throttling guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy. The structure is efficient and immediately actionable for an agent.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and read-only annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, the key parameter's source, and a critical rate-limit constraint. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear semantics of 'list sales documents'. Minor gaps include no explicit mention of response format or pagination, but these are not essential for a basic list operation. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema's top-level 'request' parameter has no description (coverage 0%), but nested fields (from, to, organizationId) have descriptions. The tool description provides a hint about organizationId (where to get it), which adds some value beyond the schema's 'Organization identifier (GUID)'. However, it does not explain the from/to date formats or any constraints, and it does not compensate fully for the missing top-level parameter description. Given the partial contribution, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists sales documents for a period ('Список документов продажи за период'). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_inventory_production_documents and list_inventory_writeoff_documents by document type. The name alone already disambiguates, and the description reinforces it with the time period context.

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 gives a direct pointer for obtaining organizationId via organizations__get_organizations, which is essential for calling the tool. It also includes throttling advice (max 10 requests per 60 seconds) and recommends caching, which guides when and how to use the tool. It does not explicitly compare against alternative list tools, but the document type is evident from the name and description, so the usage context is clear.

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