get_top_customers

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

With no annotations, the description carries a heavier burden but only reveals two implementation details: it uses SMLSVC POST ParamList and aggregates by BusinessPartnerCode. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what output shape to expect, or any side effects or assumptions, which is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety metadata.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'uses SMLSVC POST ParamList' adds some jaron and is not essential, but the overall length is appropriate and every other sentence contributes meaning.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description has notable gaps: it does not explain what the response contains, whether it is sorted, or how it relates to alternative revenue analytics tools. The parameters are documented, but the description alone is insufficient for a agent to fully predict the tool's behavior.

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 100%: topN, fromDate, and toDate are all described with defaults. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource ('top customers'), the metric ('net sales'), and the aggregation key ('BusinessPartnerCode'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_customer_list or get_top_items by focusing specifically on net-sales ranking.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_top_items, get_customer_list, or get_sales_by_period. There is no explicit or implicit exclusion or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name alone.

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