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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses that values are recomputed from ground truth on every call and never stored, that the status band derives from the forecast interval's optimistic end, and that sub-25%-elapsed periods return 'too_early' instead of a noisy verdict. Each pacing field is enumerated, which is behavioral detail an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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-loaded with the core purpose before the field inventory and the honesty caveats. It is long and the pacing-field enumeration is dense, but each sentence adds real information; nothing reads as filler.

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 describe returns — and it does, naming the pacing block and its constituent fields plus the six-value status enum. Combined with the honesty notes and the fallback routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds only a light gloss (store means sub-store key, filters narrow by metric/period/store) and says nothing about _offset beyond what the schema states, so it does not meaningfully exceed structured data.

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 verb (list) plus resource (active targets) and scope (merchant's), then immediately narrows what subset actually has live pacing. It explicitly names the siblings it defers to (get_yoy_monthly / query_metric_snapshots), so an agent can distinguish it from the other ~57 get_* tools without opening a schema.

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?

Clear about when live pacing applies (monthly revenue/orders targets scoped to a store) and where to go otherwise, plus how to filter. What's missing is a top-level trigger statement telling the agent when to reach for this tool versus get_forecast or get_daily_metrics, but the routing for its edge cases is explicit.

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