get_sales_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns and the optional period parameter, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). It adds some context about the period filter but misses broader behavioral traits.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, lists the return values, then provides parameter details in a clear 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, return values, and parameter semantics effectively. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values further. The main gap is lack of behavioral context like authentication or error handling, but overall it provides sufficient information for basic use.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'period' parameter's purpose ('Filter period'), format ('YYYY-MM'), optional nature, and default behavior ('If omitted, returns all-time stats'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics for the single parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get aggregated sales stats for the current user' with specific details about what stats are returned (counts by state, totals by month, top customers). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_my_profile or get_my_tickets by focusing on sales data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_project_summary or get_order_details which might also involve data aggregation.

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 description implies usage for retrieving sales statistics for the current user, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_my_quotations or get_order_details. It provides some context by specifying it's for 'current user' and 'aggregated sales stats,' but lacks clear guidance on exclusions or direct comparisons with sibling tools.

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