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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by scoping the data ('aggregates only, no customer data'), which tells the agent what will and will not be returned.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the read-only scope and metric list before the usage triggers. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of structured fields.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned metrics, which is the key information an agent needs. The schema covers both parameters and their defaults, though the description itself does not mention the 7-day default or the account_id dependency on list_clients.

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 are already documented in the schema (days default 7; account_id pointing to list_clients). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('operational recap') and enumerates the exact contents: revenue, orders, FBA/FBM split, account health, top products by sales velocity. This is clearly distinguishable from the many ads_* and get_* siblings because it is a composite aggregate rather than a single-entity fetch.

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?

Provides concrete trigger phrases ('how did it go', 'recap', 'how am I doing') that map user intent to this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_account_health or diagnose_sales_drop), so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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