kpi_chapter_monthly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that SALES returns GTV, deal count, and customer count per person, while other chapters return revenue squad and metrics. However, it lacks detail on potential side effects, required permissions, or output structure.

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 very concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and provide a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description provides partial information about return values but lacks full structure (e.g., array vs. object, field names for 'metrics'). It is adequate for a simple query tool but could be more detailed.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the chapter parameter affects output (SALES vs. other chapters). The month parameter is already described in the schema with format. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description compensates for the undocumented chapter enum values.

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 returns chapter data per month, with specific behavior for SALES and other chapters. It provides an example use case but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kpi_chapter.

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 gives a clear usage scenario (e.g., 'when you want to see how much Sales achieved in May'), guiding when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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