get_sales_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral trait via the start_date warning: the tool scans all orders page by page for the date range, so larger intervals degrade performance. It does not disclose return format or pagination behavior, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core function and key options. No filler, no redundancy, and it earns its place by conveying both purpose and granularity support.

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 no output schema or annotations, and while the schema descriptions are detailed and provide performance warnings, the high-level description does not specify what the response contains (e.g., time series of sales amounts) or how trend data is structured. It is adequate for a simple read-only query but leaves gaps for an agent needing to parse results.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates granularity options already present in the enum and descriptions, and does not elaborate on channel semantics beyond '通路篩選'.

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 uses a specific verb ('取得' - get) and resource ('銷售趨勢數據' - sales trend data), clearly indicating its purpose. It explicitly mentions granularity options for daily/weekly/monthly, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sales_summary or get_channel_comparison by focusing on time-series trend data.

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 for trend charting with configurable granularity, and the start_date schema provides explicit performance guidance to keep intervals minimal. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_sales_summary, nor any exclusion criteria such as 'not for aggregate totals'.

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