get_sales_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only states that the tool shows quantities and revenue. It does not mention pagination behavior, date filtering, sorting, or whether the operation is read-only. The minimal output summary leaves significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and provides a succinct summary of the output. There is no filler or redundant information, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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 tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only provides a high-level summary of the report, lacking details about response structure, pagination, date range behavior, or how this report differs from similar sibling tools. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in complex scenarios.

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?

The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by indicating the report is 'by product' and covers quantities and revenue, but it does not clarify parameter-specific behaviors like date range defaults or pagination semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool 'Get sales report by product' with a specific verb and resource, and further specifies output as 'quantities sold and revenue'. This provides a clear purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling report tools like get_profit_report or get_turnover.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_profit_report or get_money_report. It lacks any context about use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when this report is appropriate.

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