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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses freshness ('Live', 'recent window') and the shape of the returned metrics, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how the 'limit' interacts with results. This is partial disclosure for an annotation-free tool.

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 tightly written sentences, with the data content front-loaded and the usage guidance second. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the metric content adequately. However, the lone parameter is left unexplained and there is no note on result ordering or default window length, leaving an agent to guess at invocation semantics.

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 0% and there is one parameter ('limit', maximum 20). The description never mentions 'limit', what it bounds, or how many retailers are returned by default. With low coverage, the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 names a concrete resource and its contents: 'catalogue size per retailer plus outbound click volume in the recent window.' That is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools dealing with profiles, products, and leads. It stops short of an explicit 'this is the retrieval verb for X' framing, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Use to weight which retailers to surface first' supplies a clear decision context for calling the tool. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, which keeps it below 5.

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