get_sales_period

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values ('Retourne CA total, top produits et répartition par catégorie') and implies read-only behavior via 'Analyser'. However, it doesn't mention edge cases, validation, timezone handling, or performance characteristics.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage and return values. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant fluff.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return aggregates. Missing minor details like inclusive/exclusive date boundaries, but given low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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%: both date_from and date_to have ISO date descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies. It only mentions 'période personnalisée' without additional format or constraint details.

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+resource: 'Analyser les ventes sur une période personnalisée' clearly states the action and object. It distinguishes from siblings like get_daily_sales (fixed daily) and get_revenue_trend (trend analysis) by specifying custom period and returns (CA total, top produits, répartition par catégorie).

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Utiliser pour les bilans semaine/mois, comparaisons de périodes, analyses de tendances.' This tells when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Context is clear enough to differentiate from sibling tools.

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