list_sales

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List sales history' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is a safe query, what permissions might be required, if there are rate limits, or how results are returned (e.g., paginated format). The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for reliable tool invocation.

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 'List sales history' is extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It front-loads the core action ('List') and resource ('sales history'), making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient communication that 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with filtering and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination handling, leaving gaps that could hinder the agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'page', 'limit', and 'status' clearly documented in the schema. The description 'List sales history' adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining 'status' values or usage context. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high 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 'List sales history' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('sales history'), providing a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_sale' (which might retrieve a single sale) or 'list_products' (which lists different resources), leaving room for ambiguity about its specific scope.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_sale' for retrieving a single sale or 'list_products' for different resources, nor does it provide context such as prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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