List sales

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: amounts are in the business's currency, linked records carry an `_id`, and results are paginated. It stops short of saying how the date range is interpreted (inclusive boundaries, timezone) or what happens with very large ranges.

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?

Front-loaded and reasonably tight: the shape of the rows comes first, then the pagination instruction. The two paragraphs partially restate each other (date range and column list appear twice), which costs a little economy but no clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return shape (columns, currency, `_id` on linked records) and pagination. That is enough to call the tool correctly, though the treatment of inclusive date boundaries and default range behavior is left to the schema alone.

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 defaults for `to` and `limit` documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces 'date range' and 'next_cursor', adding no format details or constraint semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Sales (invoices) in a date range') and enumerates the columns returned (sale number, date, client, status, gross total). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_sales_summary, so a reader must infer list-vs-aggregate on their own.

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?

Usage is only implied by the date-range framing; there is no statement of when to call this versus get_sales_summary or how to handle open-ended ranges. The pagination hint ('Page with next_cursor') is the only actionable guidance.

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