get_product_sales

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that revenue is included only conditionally ('if the history records carry a price'), which is a meaningful behavioral nuance. It also implies the tool aggregates from purchase history rather than direct sales data. It does not cover edge cases like empty history or limit-based truncation, but the core behavior is well conveyed.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists concrete output components. Every phrase adds information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 description is sufficiently complete for a simple aggregation tool without an output schema. It covers the main return values and the conditional revenue behavior. Minor gaps remain around limit behavior and edge cases like no matching history, but these are not critical for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (product and limit) are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, such as the fact that limit controls how many purchases are scanned. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('aggregated sales for a single product'). It enumerates the exact outputs (purchase count, first/last sale, breakdowns by country, platform, trigger) and distinguishes this tool from generic sales summaries or raw purchase history.

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 context by emphasizing 'single product' and 'derived from purchase history,' which differentiates it from broader summary tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_sales_summary or get_purchase_history, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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