rr_get_lost_sales

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

No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the core purpose. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects, leaving critical decision factors unknown.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it is overly terse—slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness, such as mentioning the required parameter or the output format.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits the output nature (e.g., a number, a report), the calculation methodology, and the significance of the default parameter, which would help the agent interpret results.

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 schema has one parameter 'days' with a default, but the description provides no information about it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter's meaning and effect, which it does not.

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 clearly states the tool estimates lost sales due to stockouts, specifying both the action ('estimate') and the resource ('lost sales from stockouts'). This distinguishes it from siblings like rr_get_stockout_risk (risk assessment) and rr_get_sales_history (historical data).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, making it difficult to select appropriately among related tools.

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