Sales summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the comparison logic (same weekday last week for single days), which is not captured elsewhere. No contradictions.

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, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core output (revenue and units) and immediately clarifies the period options and comparison logic, making every word earn its place.

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?

Given the single parameter, clear enum values, output schema presence, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains the comparison methodology, which is the only non-obvious aspect.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists all enum values (today, yesterday, last_7_days, last_28_days) and explains their meaning via the comparison context. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 returns revenue and units for specified periods, with a comparison to the previous equal period. This is a specific verb+resource and is clearly distinct from sibling tools about stock and reorders.

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 provides clear context about what data it returns (sales revenue and units) and the available periods. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools are all in the stock/reorder domain, making the usage context unambiguous.

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