humanitix_sales_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses conditional output behavior ('gross revenue (when price data is available)', 'capacity utilisation (when a trustworthy capacity value is present)'), which is genuine added value, but it never states that the operation is read-only, nor anything about rate limits, cost, or the shape/size of the result.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose before the output contents and the parameter dependency note. Nothing is padded, though the middle sentence bundles several caveats.

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 and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job of summarizing the return contents and flagging conditional availability of revenue/capacity figures. The remaining gap is behavioral (read-only nature, execution limits) rather than structural, given the schema fully documents all five parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the roles of event_id and event_date_id and adds where to obtain the latter, but says nothing about raw, max_items, or override_location beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build a sales summary for a Humanitix event and event date by aggregating tickets') and enumerates what the summary contains. It is clearly distinguishable from retrieval siblings like humanitix_get_event or humanitix_list_tickets, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 concrete routing help by naming the sibling tool that supplies the required event_date_id ('can be obtained from humanitix_list_event_dates'), and the required event_id/event_date_id pair establishes the usage context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or any exclusions.

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