gumroad_list_sales

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the filtering scope; it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or volume/rate characteristics of a paginated list endpoint.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and no redundant filler. It is efficient but leaves behavioral gaps rather than wasting words.

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 simple paginated read tool with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the description is adequate to call it correctly. The main unaddressed item is pagination guidance ('page'), which the schema labels but the description never mentions.

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%, so page/after/before/email/product_id/access_token are all documented in the schema itself. The description restates the filterable fields without adding format or interaction details beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List sales from a Gumroad account') and names the filtering axes, which separates it from the sibling gumroad_get_sale (single record). It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of 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 filter phrase ('by product, email, or date range') implies the retrieval use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer gumroad_get_sale, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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