informe_ventas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the report's composition plus the output shape: a voseo summary suitable for voice plus a text detail section. It does not state that the operation is strictly read-only or describe any cost/latency or data-freshness behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the report contains and ending with the output format, with no filler. The long parenthetical enumeration is dense but every item is a distinct output field, so it earns its space.

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 4-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys both the scope and the return content, including the dual voice/text presentation. It falls short only on explicit routing versus the sibling sales tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters (top, desde, hasta, periodo) are already fully documented in the schema, including the 31-day range limit and the 3/5 default-max for top. The description adds no extra syntax or interaction rules beyond implying ranking via 'los productos que más se venden', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (an integral sales report) and enumerates its contents — gross/net sales, IVA, gross profit, average ticket, payment breakdown, top-selling and most-profitable products — so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, name the siblings ventas_hoy or ventas_periodo to explain how it differs from them, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

The phrase 'a pedido' implies this tool is for ad-hoc/custom-range requests, which loosely distinguishes it from the fixed-period siblings, and the mention of a voice-ready summary hints at its intended channel. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as the alternative for today's or a standard period's sales.

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