get_product_sales

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It discloses operational behavior (excludes cancelled, returns ranking, supports date range and limit), which is above minimal. However, it does not mention edge cases, default responses, or how it handles malformed dates/limits, so it's adequate but not exhaustive.

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 core ranking purpose is first, followed by precise optional parameters with formats and ranges. Every word earns its place.

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 0 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what ranks, what filters apply, and parameter constraints. It lacks explicit mention of output structure, but since no output schema exists, the description's focus on the ranking result is reasonable. Minor gap: doesn't specify how limit behaves if omitted, but that's a small omission.

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?

The input schema is empty (0 params, 100% coverage), meaning the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clearly specifies optional YYYY-MM-DD from/to and integer limit 1-100, which is valuable and sufficient for an agent to understand what can be passed even without a schema.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('Rank'), resource ('products'), and scope ('non-cancelled'), and includes key dimensions (units sold, EUR revenue, date range, limit). Distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on product-level ranking, not schema, customer metrics, or broader categories.

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?

Description provides context for when to use (ranking products by sales) and implies an alternative exists (e.g., get_category_revenue for category-level), but does not explicitly state when not to use or recommend a sibling. It gives enough for basic selection but lacks explicit exclusions.

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