get_sales_comparison

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. 'Compare sales metrics' implies a read-only reporting behavior, but the description does not disclose return format, aggregation level, or handling of edge cases like overlapping date ranges. It is not misleading, but it is thin.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core verb and resource before the scoping detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should provide more context about what 'sales metrics' means and what the comparison result looks like. It does not state whether differences, percentages, or absolute values are returned, leaving an agent to guess the output shape.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond framing the dates as two comparison periods, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Compare'), a clear resource ('sales metrics'), and a defining scope ('between two explicit date ranges'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_sales_summary or get_revenue_breakdown, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 description implies the tool is for side-by-side comparison of two periods, but it does not state when to prefer it over siblings or mention any exclusions. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance beyond the obvious comparison scenario.

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