sales_summary

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured behavior: the tool walks every matching order, so a wide date range spans multiple requests — a real performance/cost signal. It stops short of noting auth or result caching, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the returned metrics, then the counting rule, then the performance caveat. Every sentence provides distinct information and nothing is repeated from schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the date/status semantics plus the multi-request caveat cover the main risks. The only gap is the undefined 'top' parameter, which leaves the agent guessing how to control the best-seller list length.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains after/before as inclusive YYYY-MM-DD dates and clarifies that status filters counted orders, but the 'top' parameter (default 10) is never mentioned or defined, leaving one of four parameters undocumented in both places.

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 names the exact metrics returned (order count, revenue, refunds, AOV, best-selling products) over a dated range, which is a concrete verb+resource statement. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_orders by being an aggregate report, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Inclusive date semantics and the status filter scope ('Counts orders in the given statuses') imply how to use it, and the note that a wide range takes several requests warns against over-broad calls. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_orders or another report, 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.