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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the modeling approach, the known blind spots (seasonality and promotions are ignored), and a minimum-data requirement. It leaves unclear what the response looks like or how unreliable the estimate may be numerically.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: what it produces, how far to trust it, and what it requires. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter forecasting tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, method, caveats and preconditions. Only the return-value shape and the undocumented horizon_days parameter remain unaddressed.

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 coverage is 67%: store and history_days are documented in the schema, while horizon_days has no description anywhere. The description's phrase 'next days or weeks' loosely gestures at the horizon parameter but adds no format, defaults, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('estimates revenue for the next days or weeks') plus the method ('extending the recent weekly trend'), which distinguishes it from historical siblings like get_sales_summary and compare_periods. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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?

Gives a clear use context (short-horizon projection) and an explicit precondition ('needs at least two weeks of past orders'), and warns the output is a rough guide. It does not state when not to use it or point to an alternative for rigorous forecasting.

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