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 it does disclose a key behavioral quirk: angle:'product', report:'summary' ignores `days` and is always a fixed trailing-30-day aggregate. It also discloses which params apply to which report. It stops short of describing output shape or pagination behavior in prose, but the schema covers offset paging.

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 two-angle model and organized as a bulleted list matching the two enum values, which is scannable. It is fairly long, but every sentence carries routing or param-scoping information; slight density could be trimmed but nothing is 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?

For a 12-parameter tool with two modes and no output schema, the description maps angle→reports→params comprehensively, including defaults and the one report that ignores `days`. An agent can select the correct angle/report combination and supply required params without opening the schema.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by grouping parameters per report (leadTimeDays/safetyStockDays only for restock, productId required for trend, maxOrders for stagnant) and stating the days default and its exception. This functional mapping exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

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 (Get) and resource (sales-velocity analytics), then enumerates the two angles and their report sets. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_inventory, get_top_products, and get_product_analytics by routing explicitly to the velocity use-case.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use per angle with natural-language question frames: 'what should I reorder and how much?' vs 'a single product's trend or stagnant/dead-stock questions.' It also names the report that is 'the reason to pick this angle,' giving a clear decision path between the two modes.

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