get_sales_by_period

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Uses SMLSVC POST aggregation,' which is a useful implementation detail, but does not explain whether the operation is read-only, how empty results are handled, or what behavior to expect beyond aggregation.

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 short and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by the period options and a brief technical note. No filler is present, though it could trade the SMLSVC detail for more user-facing guidance.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It omits return format, date-range requirements or defaults, and the scope of sales data included, so an agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior before calling it.

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 only 33%, with toDate and fromDate lacking descriptions. The description repeats the periodType enum but adds nothing about the meaning of the date range parameters, their requiredness, or any default behavior.

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 a clear function: 'Sales trend by period' with explicit granularity options (day/week/month/quarter/year). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_sales_analysis, but the period-based scope makes its purpose identifiable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_year_over_year or get_sales_analysis. The description implies use for period-based sales trends, but gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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