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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds an auth/header context note, which is some value, but it also states 'ChannelOAuthId resolved internally' while the schema marks channelOAuthId as a required input — a mild confusion rather than a true annotation contradiction.

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 the core action, with no padding. The second sentence is jargon-laden and slightly misleading but is not wordy.

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 an output schema, annotations, and full schema coverage on two parameters, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the ambiguous 'resolved internally' claim about a required parameter and the lack of any usage context leave a small but real gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 both parameters (body fields Period/From/To/timeDiff, and channelOAuthId provenance) are already documented. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Reads sales aggregates') and scopes it to 'the selected visible store using WAPI GetSales'. This distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like hgr_get_sales_getorderimage_orderid_cache or hgr_get_affiliate_dashboard, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The mention of 'the selected visible store' implies a prerequisite (a selected channel) but gives no explicit guidance, and the only alternative references live in the schema description, not the tool description.

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