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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. The description does add one thing annotations cannot express: the Advanced Analytics plan requirement, which gates whether the call can succeed. It says nothing about latency, pagination, or result limits, so it is useful but not rich.

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 core content is a single dense sentence front-loading the scope ('Operational health for a date range') then the metric list, with the plan requirement and read-only note appended. It is well sized for the tool's complexity, but a stray render artifact ('[#ed8ddd]') leaks into the text and earns no 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating velocity averages, counts, rates, and a hold-reason breakdown. Combined with a fully-documented 100%-coverage input schema and readOnly annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the response shape (formatting, granularity) is left unstated.

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%, and every parameter (end, start, store, currency, workspace) already carries a well-written description including defaults and the currency-segmentation caveat. The description adds only the generic phrase 'for a date range', so the schema is doing essentially all of the parameter work and the 3 baseline applies.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what the report covers (fulfillment velocity stages, order counts, cancellation/refund/hold rates, hold-reason breakdown), which is far more specific than a bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby siblings analytics_summary, analytics_breakdown, analytics_portfolio, or analytics_timeseries, leaving the agent to guess which analytics surface to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by the metric list and the 'Requires an Advanced Analytics plan' prerequisite, which is a genuinely useful gating condition. There is no explicit when-to-use versus the other analytics_* siblings and no statement of when-not-to-use, so an agent picking among four analytics tools still has to infer.

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