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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only.' adds nothing beyond structured data. The description omits genuinely useful behavioral context: whether the windows are rolling from now, which timezone anchors 'busiest hours', whether cancelled/refunded orders are included in counts, and that no filtering by restaurant is possible (it silently scopes to 'your restaurant').

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?

One front-loaded sentence enumerating the returned metrics, which is efficient and scannable. The appended 'Read-only.' is the only waste, since it merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the result, and it does so by enumerating the four metric families. What remains missing is modest but real: the anchoring of the time windows and the treatment of non-completed orders, which affect interpretation of every number returned.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals that the scope is fixed rather than configurable by listing the two built-in windows.

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 names the concrete metrics produced (order counts by status, total sums, top products by quantity, busiest hours) over fixed 7- and 30-day windows, which is far more specific than the title alone. It distinguishes itself from the aggregation sibling reservation_summary implicitly through 'orders' vs reservations, but never names that sibling or any other, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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: an agent can infer this is the reporting/analytics tool versus transactional siblings like place_order or get_order_status, but the description states no when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and no guidance on choosing between the 7-day and 30-day views (both are returned together, which is never made explicit).

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