search_sales

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot: dates are local store dates in YYYY-MM-DD and inclusive, defaulting to today, and the meaning of each state value (e.g. pending = on account/layby). It omits any pagination/limit behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, no filler, and the highest-value facts (date semantics and the compact/get_sale fork) come first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. However, for an 11-parameter filter tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving seven filter parameters unexplained (and no mention of the limit parameter's effect) leaves real ambiguity about how to scope a search.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains three of eleven parameters well (date_from/date_to format and defaults, states enumeration values and default-all, compact toggle), but limit, user_id, outlet_id, product_id, customer_id, register_id and invoice_number have no meaning documented in either schema or description.

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?

Opening verb+resource ('Find sales') is specific, and the description explicitly contrasts compact rows against get_sale(id), separating it from the sibling detail tool. It does not distinguish itself from sales_summary or get_user_sale_totals, which also touch sale data.

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?

Gives clear routing: use search_sales for compact rows, set compact=False or call get_sale(id) when full line items are needed. Date filtering defaults are stated. No explicit when-not-to-use against sales_summary, but the primary alternative is named.

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