get_sales_analysis

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only analytical query and names the underlying HANA view plus grouping/filtering behavior. However, it doesn't disclose result shape, pagination/limits, default date-range behavior, or access requirements.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states operation and resource, the second summarizes the docType filter, and the third gives an actionable example. The content is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter analytical tool with no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, this description is minimally viable but not complete. It lacks return-value shape, default date/period handling, and explicit differentiation from the spezialized sales-analysis siblings.

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 only 63%, and the description mostly repeats the groupBy field codes and docType values already present in the schema. It does add useful extra grouping dimensions (salesperson, warehause, period) and one concrete example, but it leaves topN, cardCode, and itemCode unexplained.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Query'), a specific resource ('SAP HANA Sales Analysis via sml.svc'), and distinctive capabilities (group by customer/item/salesperson/brand and filter by doc type). It moves clearly beyond the tool name and gives an agent enough to distinguish it from generic query tools and specialized sales-report siblings, even though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

It supplies one concrete usage rule ('Use groupBy='CogsOcrCod' for brand-wise analysis') and mentions docType filtering, but with a large sibling set it never states when to prefer this tool over get_sales_by_period, get_top_customers, get_item_group_sales, or query_sml_view. The routing decision is largely left to inference.

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