luceed_retail_sales_by_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The parenthetical about wrapping mpobracun/artikli is a small implementation hint, but nothing states that this is a read-only aggregate, whether the date range is required, or how results are ordered or paginated.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is not verbose. But it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it earns only a middling score.

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?

A three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions is left almost entirely unexplained. An agent cannot reliably determine required vs. optional semantics, output shape, or how this differs from the summary sibling.

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 0% across three parameters (pj_uid, from_date, to_date), and the description adds no meaning for any of them — not even what pj_uid identifies or whether to_date defaults to today. This is a complete gap the description should have compensated for.

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 phrase 'retail sales by product' names an aggregate resource, so the agent knows the general domain, and '(wraps mpobracun/artikli)' hints at the underlying operation. However it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling luceed_retail_sales_summary, leaving the by-product vs. summary granularity difference to inference.

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 word 'Convenience' implies this is a wrapper over a lower-level endpoint, but there is no stated when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative luceed_retail_sales_summary. The agent gets no routing signal.

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