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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add output behaviour, and it does: sorting by largest net sales first, a hard 50-row cap, and inclusion of totals across all rows including those beyond the cap. It does not say whether products with zero sales appear or how share of sales is computed, but the key behavioural constraints are disclosed.

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?

Metrics, ordering and row cap are front-loaded in a single efficient sentence with no padding. The trailing clause 'Products' Resumen and Ranking y categorías read this' is cryptic and mixes languages, slightly muddying an otherwise tight definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so adequately via sort order, 50-row cap and totals. What is missing is product identity/granularity and behaviour for products with no sales in the span, which matters for a product-level board.

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 coverage is 100% and both date parameters carry detailed inclusive-range wording and the both-or-neither rule, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only says 'over the period', adding nothing about date semantics beyond what is already structured, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 concrete resource (product board) and the exact metrics returned: units, net sales, share of sales and margin over a period. That is far more specific than the name alone, though it never names the near-neighbours get_top_products or get_product_performance, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 phrase 'over the period' plus the ranking/cap hint implies a period-scoped product performance read, and the note that Resumen and Ranking y categorías consume this output hints at its role. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no guidance for choosing between this and get_product_performance, get_top_products or get_product_trends.

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