sales_reports__list

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations (which already indicate safety), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires specific authentication roles, returns data as gzipped TSV, and explains the parse=true option to decode the blob into rows. It also notes the raw response behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences pack the essential information: purpose, output format, auth prerequisites, endpoint, and the key parse option. No filler or redundant details; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description combined with the rich schema covers the core operational details: what the tool does, required auth, output format, and the decoding option. Pagination via next_url is documented in the schema. It doesn't cover potential edge cases like rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only report downloader, the information is sufficiently complete.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to elaborate. It does reinforce the parse and max_rows semantics, but adds little beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the strong schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Download' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a sales or subscription report as gzipped TSV', which is distinct enough from sibling finance report tools. The included endpoint '[GET /v1/salesReports]' further pinpoints the operation.

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?

It clearly states prerequisites (ASC_VENDOR_NUMBER and Finance/Sales role) and provides the context for when to use it (downloading sales/subscription reports). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like finance_reports__list or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the 'alternatives' component.

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