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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), and the description adds two useful traits: the result is a fixed 24-point window and values are currency-normalized. However, the granularity of those 24 points (daily, weekly, monthly) is never stated, which is critical for interpreting a chart, and there is no note on behavior when a store lacks history.

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, zero filler, and the window size and currency behavior are front-loaded where an agent will read them first.

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 and only two parameters, the description should have settled the shape of the response. It commits to 24 points but leaves the sampling interval and any missing-data behavior undefined, so an agent cannot fully predict what it will receive.

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% and the metric enum fully enumerates valid values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the constraint that exactly one metric is returned per call and that output values are currency-converted, which is modest but non-zero added 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Get the latest 24 points of one metric for a store') and pre-qualifies the intent ('for a chart'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like lookupStore or searchStores, though it never names those alternatives 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 by the phrase 'for a chart', which suggests this is the timeseries/charting path rather than the profile-style lookupStore path. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of what to do for non-chart data.

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