get_daily_sales

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'obtenir le résumé' (get the summary), implying a read operation, but it does not describe the return format, whether the summary is aggregated, timezone dependencies, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the tool name.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence lists relevant usage examples, which are useful for intent matching without being redundant. It earns a high score for efficiency, though the examples could be seen as optional.

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 or annotations, so the description should fill in what the agent can expect in the response. It doesn't mention return structure, fields, or any caveats. While the tool is simple, the description leaves out important context about the output and how it differs from related period-based sales tools.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'date' parameter, including its ISO format and default. The description adds that the date can be a specific date, which is consistent but not additional semantic detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function with a specific verb 'Obtenir' and a resource 'résumé des ventes', and specifies the temporal scope (today or a specific date). It includes example queries to clarify intended use. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with related tools like get_sales_period, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'Utiliser pour' phrase provides clear context for when this tool should be used, listing several example user intents such as 'combien on a fait aujourd'hui' and 'CA du jour'. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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