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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context: the requirement of a Q-Radar subscription and the exact meaning of 'movers' (products losing estimated sales to out-of-stock), which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence front-loaded with the key concept, followed by a clarifying clause and a subscription note. No words are wasted; it is both concise and complete.

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 simple tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the domain, the metric, the window, and an access requirement. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Lookback window in days (default 7)' and 'Max movers (default 10)'). The description adds no further parameter detail, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as 'Top potential-sales-loss (PSL) movers from quick-commerce shelf intelligence over a window', explaining exactly what it returns (products losing the most estimated sales to out-of-stock, by channel). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling Q-Radar tools like get_qradar_overview or get_shelf_availability.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this to see PSL movers over a lookback window, and it notes the prerequisite of a Q-Radar subscription. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the use case is evident from the metric definition.

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