Resend sale receipt

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious operational context the annotations cannot express: the required edit_sales scope, the native endpoint mapping, and the mandatory per-call confirmation. It could say more about side effects (does resending invalidate prior links?), hence not 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the operational constraints; no filler. The telegraphic 'Reviewed native POST...' phrasing is slightly opaque but still earns its place by pinning the endpoint.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers action, scope, endpoint, and the confirmation gate. The only missing element is guidance on when to choose this over adjacent sale tools, which is a minor gap.

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 account, confirm, and sale_id are already documented in the schema (including the confirm semantics and the sale_id pattern/padding note). The description adds nothing beyond the schema here, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Resend sale receipt') and even names the underlying native endpoint POST /sales/:id/resend_receipt, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like refund_sale or mark_sale_as_shipped, so it stops short of 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?

Gives real prerequisites ('scope: edit_sales', 'Requires explicit per-call confirmation'), which tells the agent when it may call but not when it should prefer this over alternatives. No when-not or alternative-tool guidance is offered.

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