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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the metrics returned, but it does not disclose further behavioral details like permissions, rate limits, or response format. With annotations covering the core behavior, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first sentence lists the metrics front-loaded, and the second gives a clear usage context. The structure is efficient and appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers what is returned and when to use it, which is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by noting that it returns a single summary (not a time series) or by mentioning sibling alternatives, but the essentials are present.

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 the input schema fully documents both parameters (store address/id and period with examples and timezone note). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 lists the specific metrics returned (revenue, orders, AOV, refunds, items sold, payment methods, order statuses) for a period, which clearly states what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like compare_periods or multi_store_report, so a 4 is warranted.

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?

The description provides a clear use case: 'Use for "how were sales this week/month?"', which gives context for when to call it. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as compare_periods, so it lacks explicit exclusions—a 4 rather than 5.

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