sales_list

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. It only states that the tool lists orders with certain fields but does not mention pagination behavior (despite offset/limit/all params), response format, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. The existence of parameters like dry_run and all implies behaviors that are left unexplained, so the description is insufficiently transparent.

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 a single short sentence, which is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, given the tool's complexity, a slightly more informative phrasing would not have hurt, but the brevity is acceptable and does not detract.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema. The description does not mention pagination, filtering logic, response structure, or how parameters interact. It is far from complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with appropriate parameters or to interpret results, making the description inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 only 33% (4 of 12 parameters have descriptions). The description lists what the response includes but does not explain any parameters. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage; parameters like timezone, dry_run, offset, and sort_direction remain ambiguous. The description adds no semantic value 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 clearly states the tool 'lists orders' and enumerates the fields included (status, date, payment, customer, items, total). This is a specific verb-resource combination that conveys the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like sales_detail, which also deals with orders, so it stops short of a 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative order-related tools such as sales_detail or sales_metrics. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the bare description.

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