get_sales_trends

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. 'Get sales trends and analytics' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or what the output looks like (e.g., aggregated data, charts). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise ('Get sales trends and analytics') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose in a single phrase, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'trends and analytics' entail, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity implied by analytics and the lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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%, with all three parameters (start_date, end_date, bucket_size) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 'Get sales trends and analytics' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('sales trends and analytics'), but it's vague about what specific analytics are provided and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_sales_totals' or 'get_sales'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_sales_totals' or 'list_sales'. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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