calculate_sales_totals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what the tool returns (revenue, tax, count, etc.), it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts of complex filters, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a calculation tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this represents a significant transparency gap.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that cover both the filtering capabilities and return values. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the core purpose more prominently before listing filter options.

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 calculation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, performance considerations, and differentiation from sibling tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more detail about return formats, but it only gives a high-level overview of what metrics are returned.

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 description lists filtering dimensions (date range, status, location, etc.) and mentions the optional breakdown capability, which aligns with the input schema parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage where each parameter is already well-documented in the schema, the description adds only marginal value beyond what's already structured. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose as calculating sales totals with filtering capabilities, which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_sales_trends' or 'get_account_stats' that might also involve sales data analysis, leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this particular calculation tool.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sales_trends' or 'list_sales'. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where this calculation is preferred over other sales-related tools, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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