merit_get_sales_report

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden of explaining side effects, response behavior, and prerequisites. It only gives an endpoint and enum mapping, without stating whether the POST is effectively read-only, what the response contains, or whether any permissions or data constraints apply.

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 compact and front-loads the resource name, with no filler words. It is telegraphic and could be better structured as sentences, but it wastes no space.

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 output schema and no annotations, an agent needs at least an indication of what the report response looks like and when this endpoint is appropriate. The description covers the type selector but leaves the return format, date range behavior, and relationship to other reports unexplained.

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 coverage is 100%, so startDate, endDate, and reportType are already documented structurally. The description adds only a redundant restatement of the reportType enum and does not clarify date range semantics or any relationships between parameters.

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 identifies the resource ('Sales report') and the exact POST endpoint, and the reportType enum clarifies the five report variants. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name 'get', and it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling report tools beyond the 'sales' qualifier.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling reporting tools such as merit_get_customer_debts_report or merit_get_profit_report. The reportType mapping hints at scope, but no decision criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

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