report_class_sales

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the classes-enabled prerequisite, which is the most important behavioral fact, but says nothing about output format, row limits, pagination, or whether the call simply enqueues a report versus returning data synchronously.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite and capabilities. The capability sentence is largely redundant with the schema and could be cut or made more specific, but there is no wasted preamble.

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 report tool with a rich nested parameter object and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose and one prerequisite but leaves the agent guessing about return shape and whether the nested filter lists override or combine with date_macro. Adequate, not complete.

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 description's phrase "date range, accounting method, summarization, and filters" is essentially a restatement of what the nested schema already documents in detail (date_macro vs start/end exclusivity, the accounting_method enum, summarize_column_by values, and the filter list). It adds no format or precedence meaning beyond the schema, though the schema itself is thorough enough that the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and named report ("Run a Sales by Class Summary report"), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like report_item_sales or report_department_sales by the report's dimension. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the report name itself carries the differentiation.

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?

"Requires classes to be enabled" is a genuine precondition that tells the agent when this tool will fail or be inappropriate. However, there is no guidance on choosing between this and other sales reports (item, customer, department) when the agent's data could be sliced multiple ways.

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