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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavior of returning totals grouped by brand or day, which is useful context beyond annotations. No further side effects or limitations are disclosed, but the annotation coverage lowers the required bar.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose (aggregated summary) and includes the key differentiator (grouping options). Every word adds value.

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?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits the 'modalities' parameter entirely, does not specify date formats, and provides no details about the response structure or potential limitations. An agent would need to guess on critical operational details.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explicitly maps 'por bandeira ou por dia' to the group_by parameter and mentions 'período' implying start_date and end_date. However, the 'modalities' parameter is entirely omitted, and no date format or value types are provided. It partially clarifies parameters but leaves a gap.

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 provides an aggregated summary of sales for a specific account (Rede) over a period, with totals grouped by brand or day. It uses the specific verb 'resumo' and distinguishes from the sibling 'rede_vendas_listar' by indicating it's an aggregate rather than a list.

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 purpose implies that this tool is for aggregated summaries, and the grouping options (brand/day) suggest when it would be used. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'rede_vendas_listar' (which likely lists individual transactions). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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