reports_sales_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value by listing the returned sections (KPI summary, monthly trends, recent invoices, top clients, top products) and by disclosing the X-Company auth requirement and its env-var fallback. It doesn't mention default ordering, result caps on "recent invoices", or performance cost of wide date ranges.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then return payload, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated verbatim from the schema beyond what is necessary framing.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return shape, and it also covers the required auth header — the two things most likely to cause a failed call. It stops short of noting payload size or truncation behavior for the list sections, which matters for a report that aggregates several collections.

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 all three parameters — dateFrom, dateTo, companyId — are already documented with formats and the env-var override. The description restates the date range and the company requirement without adding format, constraint, or edge-case guidance (e.g. max span, dateFrom after dateTo behavior), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Generate a sales analysis report for a date range") and enumerates exactly what the report contains. It does not, however, distinguish this from nearby analytics siblings such as reports_vat, reports_vat_oss, balance_analysis, or dashboard_stats, so an agent must infer which reporting tool to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by "for a date range" and by naming the required company context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling report for a different analytical need. Given how many overlapping report/analysis tools exist, this leaves real selection work to the agent.

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