sales_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool returns aggregated metrics. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how aggregation is computed, whether dates are inclusive, or what the response looks like. An agent cannot infer the side-effect profile or output 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 very short and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than economically complete. It front-loads aggregate and period/grouping concepts but provides no additional structure or detail that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

This is a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is a single noun phrase. There is no information about required inputs, date formats, comparison behavior, or response shape, making the definition inadequate for correct invocation. The large sibling set is also left undifferentiated.

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 only 10% (date_from), and the description hints only at period parameters and group_by. The meaning of fields, sort_by, compare_to, dry_run, limit, and timezone semantics are left undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds minimal value beyond a general grouping hint.

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 communicates that this tool returns aggregated sales metrics by period and groupings, which distinguishes it at a high level from record-level siblings like sales_list and sales_detail. It lacks an explicit verb, so it does not reach the top tier, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 phrase 'por periodo y agrupaciones' implies this is the summary/analytics choice rather than the record-level sales_list or sales_detail, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The usage guidance is only implied, not spelled out.

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