PayPing: sales summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the reporting currency (Toman) and the effective default window when dates are omitted, which the schema alone does not resolve (it only shows null defaults).

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?

Two tight sentences: the returned metrics are front-loaded, the default period follows. Zero filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 read-only aggregate with an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the metrics, currency, and default range. The only gap is routing guidance versus sibling tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds the null-omission behavior ('defaults to the last 30 days') that the schema's null defaults leave ambiguous, clarifying how from_date/to_date behave when unset.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (sales summary) and enumerates the concrete outputs: total amount in Toman, transaction count, daily averages. This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like payping_list_transactions, but it never explicitly names an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 default window ('last 30 days') implies a typical usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any pointer to sibling aggregation tools such as payping_get_balance or payping_list_transactions.

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