Get sales summary

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: rows are grouped per sale type with a totals row, an empty period returns no rows, and amounts are in the business's currency — all useful for interpreting results.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose then the return shape; every sentence contributes (metrics list, row structure, empty-period behavior, currency). Minor redundancy between the opening list and the parenthetical column list.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return shape, and it does: one row per sale type, Fresha's columns, a totals row, and 'columns names each key.' Only gap is any hint of aggregation granularity limits or currency conversion behavior.

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% and both parameters (from required, to defaulting to from) are fully documented there. The description only restates 'for the days given' without adding format, timezone, or range-limit semantics, so it meets the baseline but no more.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Sales summary for a period') and immediately enumerates the metrics covered (sales, refunds, discounts, taxes, payments by type). The second paragraph's 'one row per sale type' shape implicitly separates it from the transaction-level list_sales sibling, though it never names 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?

It grounds the tool in a known UI location ('Reads Reports > Sales summary for the days given'), which tells the agent this is an aggregated report pull. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of list_sales as the per-transaction alternative, leaving the choice to inference.

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