Get sales

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true), so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds a genuinely valuable behavioral note — 'Dates are site-local' — but omits other traits that matter for a paginated query, such as what maxPages defaulting to 3 implies about truncated results or the shape of returned records.

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?

A single dense sentence with the endpoint and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information provided, though it is telegraphic rather than structured.

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 read-only range query with full schema coverage and a safety annotation, the essentials are present. With no output schema, the description could have said something about the returned transaction fields or pagination limits, so an agent may not realize results can be truncated at maxPages.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by adding timezone semantics for the date parameters ('site-local') that the schema's 'YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive)' text does not convey — a common source of date-boundary errors.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('GET /sale/sales — sales transactions') and scopes it to a datetime range, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It adds the distinguishing qualifier 'refund/purchase source of truth,' but does not name or contrast any sibling tool (e.g., mbo_api_get) explicitly.

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?

Calling itself 'the refund/purchase source of truth' implies this is the authoritative tool for transaction/refund data, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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