get_sales_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names returned metrics but does not explain how comparison is represented, whether comparison output is included by default, or any other behavior around aggregation, date handling, or response structure.

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 very concise and front-loaded. Both sentences are useful, with the core purpose stated first and the optional comparison behavior stated second. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 description is adequate for a simple summary tool, especially with full parameter schema coverage. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could be more complete by clarifying comparison output behavior and how this tool relates to get_sales_comparison.

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 schema already documents all parameters effectively. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond naming output metrics, but it does not need to compensate because parameter meanings are already explicit in the schema.

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 gets a sales summary with specific metrics (revenue, orders, AOV). It is distinguishable from siblings by its focus on summary metrics, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_sales_comparison, especially since it also mentions optional comparison.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sales_comparison or get_revenue_breakdown. The optional comparison behavior creates ambiguity with the dedicated comparison sibling, and there is no explicit routing or exclusion noted.

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