get_salesperson_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'uses SMLSVC POST' but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation or if it has side effects, and the POST reference could even be misleading. It also does not disclose return behavior, required permissions, or any limitations.

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 highly concise: two short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. However, the phrase 'uses SMLSVC POST' is an implementation detail that adds little operational value for an agent, slightly weakening the justification for every sentence earning 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 a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal description, this is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, the nature of the returned data, whether the operation is safe, or what 'GP' means. An agent would need additional inference or external knowledge to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 0%, and the description makes no mention of the two parameters, fromDate and toDate, or their roles in filtering the sales performance data. With no compensation in the description, an agent cannot understand what date range to supply or whether the parameters are optional.

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 'Sales and GP by sales employee' and further specifies 'Groups by SalesEmployeeOrBuyerNumber,' which names the metric and the grouping dimension. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_sales_by_period or get_warehouse_sales, which use different grouping dimensions.

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 intended usage is implied by the phrase 'Sales and GP by sales employee' — an agent can infer this is for retrieving employee-level sales data. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sales_by_period or get_sales_analysis, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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