analytics_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a reporting or read-only operation but never states whether calling this tool has side effects, requires specific permissions, or aggregates/precomputes data. At best, it describes content, not behavior.

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 in one short phrase with no redundancy and is easily scanned. However, its brevity makes it a fragment rather than a self-contained functional description, so judged as an effective structure it feels under-specified.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, the description leaves important invocation details unresolved. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of expected values, defaults, or response shape means an agent would still have to guess or experiment to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has three string properties with zero documentation, and the description does not explain the fields, date_from, or date_to parameters explicitly. The listed metrics hint at the domain and possible field values, but they do not define allowed values, formats, or optionality beyond the schema's bare types.

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 identifies a product-level menu performance report and names the concrete metrics included: unidades, ingresos, margen. It is a noun phrase rather than a verbed action, but it sufficiently signals the tool's content and sets it apart from customer or financial analytical siblings like analytics_rfm or analytics_food_cost.

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 gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over other analytics or menu tools, nor does it mention any required context such as date ranges or filtering. There are no exclusionary notes or alternative tool references, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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