get_sale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns structured data, handles errors, or has rate limits. It lacks details on what 'sale' entails (e.g., fields returned) or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence ('Get specific sale by ID') with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval with 1 parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, return format, or how it fits within the broader context of sibling tools, making it inadequate for full agent understanding without additional inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that the 'sale_id' parameter is used to retrieve a 'specific sale'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type definition. However, it doesn't explain the ID format, constraints, or examples, so it only partially compensates for the low coverage, aligning with the baseline expectation.

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 'Get specific sale by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('sale'), and specifies the lookup method ('by ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_sales' (plural) by indicating retrieval of a single sale. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other 'get_' tools that also retrieve specific items by ID (e.g., 'get_contract', 'get_invoice'), making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_sales' (for listing multiple sales) or 'search' (for broader queries), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description alone, with no explicit context.

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