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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: logged-in user visits are excluded from views, dates are UTC, only the sales breakdown is split by product, and a specific API key scope is required. This extra semantic detail is what pushes it above baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose and return content, followed by behavioral caveats and the auth requirement. Sentences are dense and each carries information, though the prefix 'Payhip:' is slightly redundant with the title.

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 read-only stats tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (three analytics graphs as numbers), the counting nuances, the timezone, and the auth prerequisite. The main missing piece is disambiguation from payhip_get_sales_report, which is more a usage gap than a completeness one.

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 'from' and 'to' documented as start/end dates in UTC. The description's mention that all dates are in UTC reinforces the schema but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get sales stats) and enumerates the three metrics returned: daily views, daily sales, and sales by product. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling payhip_get_sales_report, which sounds capable of returning similar data.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names or contrasts the obviously related sibling payhip_get_sales_report. The only conditional information provided is a prerequisite (the Cotlet API key), which is not usage routing.

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