apple_get_sales_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses data latency (next-day availability), the vendor-number dependency, and that Apple reports accepted reportSubType/version values via error rather than up front. Missing permission/rate-limit notes, but it is well beyond a bare restatement.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then prerequisites, then the type/subtype coupling. No filler, and each clause carries operational information.

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 9-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential reasoning: what data comes back, what governs validity of type/subtype/version, and the availability lag. Minor gaps remain, e.g. that maxRows truncates while outputPath gets the full file is only in the schema.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds genuine cross-parameter meaning the schema cannot express: reportSubType and version must be consistent with reportType, and SALES pairs with SUMMARY. The error-driven discovery hint for accepted values is also useful beyond the enum lists.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Download a Sales and Trends report") plus the concrete contents (units, installs, proceeds by territory/device) make it unmistakable. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like apple_get_finance_report and apple_download_analytics_report by naming the report family and its data.

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?

States prerequisites (vendor number required) and a key timing caveat (data usually appears the next day), which tells the agent when a report is actually available. It does not explicitly compare against apple_get_finance_report or the analytics-report siblings, but the described data content implies the choice.

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