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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds materially: the 14-day before/after structure, a whole-store benchmark for comparison, the four verdict values plus reason strings, and the tally. It also warns that a verdict is association after the change, not causal proof, which guards against a real misreading.

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?

Front-loads what the tool actually returns, then the when-to-use triggers, then the causal caveat and pending-scope note. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; no filler or restated title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does — schema of the report, verdict vocabulary, and tally are all described. The behavioral caveats around causality and pending items close out the remaining gaps.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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?

States a specific, non-obvious verb+resource: the outcome of recommendations already marked done, broken into target-figure windows, store-relative change, verdict, and tally. This is clearly separable from siblings like list_recommendations, which lists rather than evaluates results.

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?

Gives explicit triggers — 'whether a change worked', 'results of past recommendations', 'how many improved' — and a scope exclusion ('Pending ones are still inside their 14 days'). It does not name a sibling alternative for the pending-recommendations case, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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