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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: cancelled orders are excluded from the aggregates, and `coverage` is explained as the count of orders where the link was identifiable — a data-quality caveat an agent would otherwise misread.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: the ranked metric list first, the coverage caveat second, the marketplace limitation last. No filler and no restatement of 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by listing the per-link metrics plus the coverage field. Period defaults and pagination are handled by the schema, but ranking/tie behavior and the shape of the coverage value are left implicit.

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 days/sort/limit/offset/start_date/end_date are already fully documented, including the enum values and the paging.nextOffset hint. The description only refers vaguely to 'período' and adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 — affiliate links from AliExpress ranked by earnings in a period — and enumerates the exact metrics returned (orders, sales, commission, distinct buyers, products). The AliExpress-only scoping plus the cancelled-order exclusion distinguishes it clearly from siblings like painel_get_top_products or painel_get_subid_breakdown.

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 parenthetical '(sem cancelados)' and the note that other marketplaces don't report the sale link give a clear condition for when this tool is and isn't applicable. It stops short of naming a concrete alternative (e.g., what to use for other marketplaces or for product-level ranking), so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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