luceed_mpobracun

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, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the call is read-only, whether od_datuma/do_datuma are required or defaulted, whether results are paginated, or what shape the response takes. Only the implicit read-only nature of a "calculation" is 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?

Two short clauses with the core purpose and the action list front-loaded; no filler or repetition. The phrasing is slightly telegraphic ("Actions: placanja, artikli") but compact and readable.

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 4-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the action split, which is the minimum viable level. It leaves unresolved the overlap with near-identical siblings and gives no hint about date-range handling or return contents, so an agent may still pick the wrong retail-sales tool.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by mapping the enum values to meaning: 'placanja' = turnover by payment type, 'artikli' = turnover by product. The schema only labels 'action' as "Which endpoint action to call", which is uninformative, so this mapping is genuine added value. The date and business-unit parameters still receive no explanation in either place.

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 states a concrete purpose: retail turnover calculation broken down by payment type or by product, with the two action values named. That is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar siblings luceed_retail_sales_summary and luceed_retail_sales_by_product, so it stops 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 only usage cue is the vague trigger phrase "use for 'how much sales'". No when-not conditions and no alternatives are named, despite two obvious sibling candidates (luceed_retail_sales_by_product, luceed_retail_sales_summary) that an agent could easily confuse with this tool. Guidance is present but not actionable for selection.

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