get_sales_by_employee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: required permissions (PAYMENTS_R, EMPLOYEES_R) and the degradation to IDs-only with a note. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second covers permission requirements. Perfectly front-loaded with no filler.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, default behavior, and permission needs. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning with 'date window' and 'default: today', clarifying that nulls mean today. However, it does not specify date format or inclusive/exclusive boundaries, leaving some ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), names the resource ('gross sales'), specifies the grouping ('by employee'), and defines a date window. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_sales_summary and get_sales_by_hour.

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 purpose implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as get_sales_summary or get_tips_by_employee. The default 'today' provides contextual guidance for parameter omission, but no exclusions or when-not guidance.

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