sales_by_month

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what is aggregated and along which dimensions, but says nothing about read-only nature, data scope, time-window behaviour, or how the default window is applied.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the metrics are stated before the grouping options. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing details noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the aggregation concept is clear enough to invoke with defaults. However, with an undocumented default window of 6 months and an opaque 'as_of' parameter, an agent cannot fully reason about what period it is querying.

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 0% for three parameters, and the description only implicitly covers group_by by listing 'canal de venda, plano ou cidade'. The 'months' window and the 'as_of' reference-date semantics remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 metrics ('novos clientes e MRR novo') and the temporal grain ('por mês'), plus the three grouping dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like churn_by_month or tickets_by_month by virtue of the sales/new-MRR focus, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative (e.g. when to prefer churn_by_month or run_sql). The context is only inferable from the metric names themselves.

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