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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these. The description adds useful context about arbitrary date ranges and high-level aggregation, but it does not disclose additional behavioral caveats such as how data is aggregated or whether results are cached.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the tool's purpose, the metrics involved, and the intended use case without redundant words. It is concise, structured, and scannable.

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 only two well-documented parameters and an output schema present, the description plus schema provide enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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%, with both start_date and end_date fully documented including format, timezone resolution, and inclusivity. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because the schema already carries the load.

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 that the tool returns a high-level summary of specific metrics (revenue, profit, orders, ad spend, top metrics) for an arbitrary date range. It conveys the verb and resource well, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like get_pnl_summary or get_revenue_breakdown.

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 'suitable for quick time-period comparisons' gives clear usage context, indicating when an agent would choose this tool. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives among the many overlapping summary tools.

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