get-sales-orders

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully states that results come back as the first N records in ascending Sales Order number order and explains the effect of the `fields` parameter. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but for a list operation it discloses the key non-obvious behaviors.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds ordering and limit semantics, and the third flags column customization. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restating of schema details.

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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the resource, notable output fields, ordering, and limiting behavior. Parameter specifics are fully delegated to the schema, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a brief note that `fields` changes returned columns; the schema already explains `top` and `soldToParty` thoroughly. This meets the minimum but does not go far beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Sales Orders from SAP S/4HANA.' It also names concrete included data (net value, currency, processing status), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like get-purchase-orders.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool when you need Sales Orders from SAP S/4HANA. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the resource-specific language makes selection unambiguous relative to the sibling tools.

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