get_sales_summary

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses detailed behavioral rules: it counts only SUCCESS payments, reports voids/refunds separately, breaks out tips/taxes, flags offline payments, uses merchant currency, defaults to today UTC, and chunks 90-day windows with progress logs. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that annotations alone wouldn't convey.

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 compact and information-dense: a one-sentence purpose, a sentence on defaults and chunking, and a sentence of rules/exclusions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or marketing language.

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 tool with two optional parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what is counted, how breakdowns work, long-range handling, and what it cannot do. The output schema handles return types, and the description adds operational context like progress logs and timezone defaults, making it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the date window concept and the default of today when no dates are supplied. However, it does not specify the date format, inclusivity, or handling when only one date is provided, leaving some ambiguity for the two optional date parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'aggregated sales summary' and a date window scope, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_payments (raw list) and summarize_sales (likely a different summary). It also states exclusions, removing ambiguity.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use it: to get aggregated sales data for a date window, with default behavior and long-range handling. It explicitly states what it does not support (payment capture, refunds, voids), which clarifies boundaries. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools for those actions, so it's not a fully explicit 'use X instead' guideline.

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