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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the aggregation granularity (daily revenue, per order connection and in total) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about default date window behavior, response size, or whether totals and per-connection figures come back together.

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 resource and its metrics in one dense sentence, followed by a conditional parameter note and the endpoint. The metric list is long but each item is substantive; the trailing endpoint path is only marginally useful but short.

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 correctly compensates by spelling out the fields the response contains and the per-connection vs. total split. What's missing is the default time frame when dates are omitted — the one behavior an agent could plausibly get wrong on a call with zero required parameters.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that order_config_id is 'the order_config_id field of an order' — i.e. where to source the value — and that supplying it restricts results to a single connection. It remains silent on the effect of omitting start_date/end_date.

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 specific verb+resource (order statistics of a project) and immediately enumerates the metrics produced — orders, ordered products, commission, shipping costs, revenue, daily revenue. This clearly separates it from the order-CRUD siblings (channable_get_order, channable_list_orders), none of which return aggregates.

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 only real usage instruction is 'Pass order_config_id ... for one order connection only', which usefully signals the optional narrowing of scope. There is no statement about when to prefer this over sibling order tools, whether a date range is effectively mandatory, or what happens if the dates are omitted.

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