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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does meaningful work: it reveals the returned measure set, that comparisons are percentage changes vs the prior period, and that all-time totals are included alongside period metrics. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or the caveat that today is excluded by default (that only lives in the schema), so a small gap remains.

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?

Effectively three sentences: what it returns, when to use it, and the sibling alternative. It is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place, though the first sentence is a dense em-dash list that could be trimmed slightly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must (and largely does) enumerate the return contents, including the comparison deltas and all-time totals. Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only minor operational details (timezone, permissions) are absent.

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%, so startDate, endDate, and _offset are already fully documented, including the 'yesterday by default' nuance. The description only refers to 'the specified period' and adds no date syntax or pagination guidance beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource (store metrics from Shopify order data) and enumerates exactly what is returned: revenue, orders, AOV, items sold, discounts, unique customers, plus percent changes and all-time totals. It also explicitly scopes the data source ('Shopify order data ONLY'), which is the key way an agent distinguishes it from the many other get_* siblings.

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?

It states the intended use case ('Use this for high-level store performance questions') and names a concrete alternative with the condition that selects it: full cross-source overview → get_complete_dashboard. Both the when-to-use and the alternative are explicit rather than inferred.

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