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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful disclosure—results are aggregates only and contain no customer data—but says nothing about data freshness, empty/no-data responses, or whether totals include all stores by default.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by a scoping constraint. The parenthetical Analytics-page analogy earns its place as a mental anchor; nothing is padded.

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 no output schema, the description should say more about the return shape—e.g. whether metrics are flat scalars, per-metric keys, or broken down over the period. The metric examples and the aggregates-only note are helpful, but an agent cannot predict the response structure from this.

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%, with both enums fully documented (app values mapped to product names, period values explained), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only reinforces that the app parameter is singular ('one app') and that output is aggregate; it adds no syntax or format meaning.

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 resource and scope: performance numbers for one app, with concrete metric examples (bundle revenue, popup sign-ups, cart upsell sales). It is distinguishable from sibling list/get tools such as list_apps or get_setup, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied via the anchor 'the same numbers as the app's Analytics page', which tells the agent the domain but not when to choose this over get_setup, list_apps, or get_suggestions. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given; the store-selection hint lives in the schema rather than the description.

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