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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses data scoping (merchant vs partner, own organisation restriction) and date format, but says nothing about permissions required, result size, caching, or whether the response is a snapshot. For a read-only analytics endpoint the omission is moderate rather than severe.

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 dense sentences covering outputs, date format, and audience-scoping logic with no filler. The content is front-loaded and efficient, though the second sentence packs routing rules that could be slightly more structured.

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 4-parameter, no-output-schema analytics tool with no annotations, the description covers scoping and date format but leaves return shape and volume unspecified. An agent knows what to pass but not what to expect back, which is a notable gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 100%: every parameter already has a description including defaults and formats. The description adds only the yyyy-MM-dd format reminder and the partner-specific organisationId rule, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (analytics) and resource (shipments), and enumerates the concrete outputs: order/label/return counts, chart, carrier mix, shop/customer mix, and delivery performance. It also distinguishes the merchant vs partner use case. The only gap is that no sibling tool overlaps meaningfully, so no explicit differentiation is needed.

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?

Clearly explains when to use it for each audience: merchants get their own data, partners pass a single customer organisation id or omit it for the whole book. This routing logic is actionable. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g., PartnerSummary, SummarizeUsageRecords) that an agent might otherwise confuse for analytics.

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