List sales

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the required scope (view_sales) and that no local effect approval is needed. It stops short of 5 because pagination behavior and return shape are left unmentioned.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the endpoint and permission facts. No filler, though the semicolon-chained jargon is slightly dense.

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 an eight-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, endpoint, and permission scope, but says nothing about pagination semantics or result shape. Annotations handle the safety dimension, leaving this adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the page_key/next_page_key pagination contract. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"List sales" largely restates the tool name, but the addition of "Reviewed native GET /sales; scope: view_sales" gives the agent a concrete backend operation and permission scope. It does not distinguish this from the sibling get_sale (single sale) or explain the relationship to list_products, so it stops short of a 4.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_sale, mark_sale_as_shipped, or refund_sale, and no stated conditions for filtering. The scope mention hints at a prerequisite but is not framed as usage guidance.

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