Print the bill of sale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that files are written to a default documents folder, that out_path overrides it, that drafts get a DRAFT watermark to prevent mis-signing, and that it costs nothing. It stops short of stating permission requirements, whether rendering a finalized sale is required, or the failure/error profile, and it leaves overwrite semantics entirely to the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and free of filler; the trailing one-word 'Free.' sentence earns its place as a cost signal. Slight redundancy with the schema's enum and default path keeps it short of a perfect score.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the artefacts produced and their nature (self-contained HTML, signature lines) rather than the return payload. It is nearly complete for a simple render tool, though it does not say what the call returns (e.g., written file paths) on success.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description restates the format choices (markdown/html/both) and the default output location, adding context about DRAFT rendering but no syntax or constraints 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 and resource ('Render a bill of sale') plus the concrete artefacts produced (Markdown, self-contained HTML for print-to-PDF, or both). This is plainly distinguishable from the sibling CRUD tools (sale_create, sale_update, sale_finalize, sale_get, etc.) without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers this is the output/print step, and the mention of the DRAFT watermark hints at the draft-vs-final lifecycle that sale_finalize governs. However, there is no explicit 'use this after sale_finalize' or 'do not use for X' guidance, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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