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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations lack: whether the result is a single aggregate or a per-day series, and the fact that it is store-scoped remote data fetched via a dated path.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the meaning of the returned value, then the granularity rule, then the endpoint. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should anchor the return value; it does so qualitatively ('Sales total (turnover)') and distinguishes aggregate vs per-day output. It does not indicate the currency, tax treatment, or whether a per-day series is an array, which is a minor remaining gap for a reporting tool.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents every parameter including the 'omit for the whole month' behavior of day. The description repeats that same semantic via the endpoint template but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the specific resource (turnover / sales total) for a specific scope (one store, one day or one month) and gives the exact REST endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from the only sibling report, hiboutik_report_products_sold, which covers product-level units rather than monetary totals.

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?

It explains the day-omitted branch, which tells the agent how to get a monthly per-day series instead of a single-day total. However, it never states when to prefer this report over hiboutik_report_products_sold or hiboutik_list_closed_sales, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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