get_sales_report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only reveals that the report is returned as text. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, how to interpret the text, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a report-fetching tool.

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, just two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and includes a useful detail about return format. The brevity is appropriate for a straightforward retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has five parameters with varied enums and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully self-sufficient. It lacks context about report types, frequency choices, vendor number significance, and what the returned text looks like. The schema covers parameter syntax but not usage scenarios or return structure.

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 five parameters documented including enums. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool requests a sales or financial report and returns data as text, making the primary purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools (none of which are report-related), though the verb 'Request' is slightly less direct than 'Get' or 'Retrieve'.

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. It does not mention App Store Connect, typical use cases, or prerequisites beyond the schema's required parameters. As the only report tool, the context is weakly implied but not explicit.

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