get_year_over_year

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'uses SMLSVC POST', but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether special permissions are required, or what the response shape looks like. For a tool with no safety annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 with the core purpose. The trailing 'uses SMLSVC POST' clause is somewhat opaque and arguably not essential, but it does not bloat the description.

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?

The tool is simple, the parameters are fully documented, and the purpose is clear. However, with no output schema and no behavioral annotations, the description leaves the return format and operational behavior partially to inference. It is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters and their defaults. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond indicating that the two years are compared, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('total sales and GP between two years side-by-side'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for differentiation, but the year-over-year comparison scope is distinctive enough among the listed sales tools like get_sales_by_period.

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 use case is implied: use this when comparing total sales and gross profit across two years. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over similar analytics siblings, no mention of prerequisites, and the 'uses SMLSVC POST' note is more implementation detail than usage direction.

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