sales_report

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the report's contents (metrics included, date range), but does not disclose behavioral details such as output format, pagination, or whether the report is aggregated or time-bucketed. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not exceptional.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the metrics. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and immediately scannable.

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 simple read-only report with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context by listing the specific metrics covered. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns. Minor gaps remain around the 'to' parameter and the exact structure of the response, but these do not critically undermine usability.

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 50%: 'from' is documented as ISO date with all-time default, while 'to' lacks a description. The description reinforces that these parameters define a date range, which adds some semantic context. However, it does not clarify the exact meaning of 'to' beyond the implicit pairing with 'from', and the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 conveys the tool's purpose: generating a sales report with specific metrics (revenue, orders, AOV, tax, shipping, discounts, top products). While it lacks an explicit verb like 'generate' or 'retrieve', the noun phrase 'Sales report' makes the function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as analytics_funnel.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with other reporting tools like analytics_funnel, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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