report_department_sales

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one meaningful behavioral trait, the precondition that departments must be enabled, which goes beyond the schema. It says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, result size, or whether filters combine with AND semantics, leaving gaps for a reporting tool with no annotation coverage.

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, purpose first followed by the prerequisite and capability summary, with no filler. The third sentence is largely a restatement of what the nested schema already exposes, so it is slightly expendable but still useful as a quick orientation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally say what the report returns, such as one row per department with column groupings controlled by summarize_column_by, but it does not. Combined with no annotations, an agent knows what to call but not what comes back or how filters interact.

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 reported top-level schema coverage is 0% because everything sits under a nested 'params' object, but the nested properties are themselves richly described with formats, enums, and mutual exclusion for date_macro vs start_date/end_date. The description only summarizes the parameter categories ('date range, accounting method, summarization, and filters'), adding no semantics the nested schema does not already give.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Run a Sales by Department Summary report'), so an agent knows exactly which report is produced. It does not distinguish itself from other sales reports in the sibling list such as report_class_sales, report_item_sales, or report_customer_sales, so differentiation is left to the name.

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 departments to be enabled' is a genuine usage prerequisite that tells the agent when the call will fail. Beyond that there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this report versus the other dimension-based sales reports, so the agent must infer the choice from the tool name.

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