Timi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description supports with the word 'Read'. It adds no additional behavioral context such as response format, rate limits, or aggregation details beyond listing metric categories. The description is consistent with the annotation but does not enrich it.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and the key resource types. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, earning a high score for structure.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, read-only, no output schema), so the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits explanation of the period parameter values and any potential limitations, which an agent would need to use the tool effectively. The absence of an output schema makes return-format disclosure less critical, but the period semantics are a notable gap.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter, 'period', is not explained in the description beyond the phrase 'for a period'. The enum values (7d, 30d, 90d, all) and their meaning are left to the schema, which lacks descriptions. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanation.

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 states the verb 'Read' and the resource (aggregate metrics across sales, conversation, funnel, shop-health). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_business_trends or get_shop_profile, but the scope is distinct enough that an agent can infer when this overview tool is appropriate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether to prefer it for high-level summaries or if there are any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with those. The description adds no further behavioral context such as data freshness, pagination, or availability, so it neither strongly enhances nor contradicts the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and it avoids redundancy with the title aside from the essential 'trends' context.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional enum parameter) and the annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema and the description only vaguely promises 'aggregate trend and time-series metrics.' That is usable but not detailed enough to fully prepare an agent for the exact response shape or metric types.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for parameter meaning, but 'for a period' only restates the parameter name without adding detail about allowed values, default behavior, or how the period controls aggregation. The schema's enum/default already supplies most of the meaningful parameter information.

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 and resource: 'Read aggregate trend and time-series metrics for a period.' It clearly indicates a read-only reporting tool and distinguishes itself from an overview or profile by the trend/time-series focus, though it does not explicitly contrast the sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over get_business_overview or get_shop_profile. The phrase 'for a period' only implies a time-bound context, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the read-only, narrow-scope behavior. The description adds context about the specific resource being read, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or authentication requirements.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The action ('Read') and target ('basic Timi shop profile') are immediately clear and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is mostly sufficient: an agent can invoke it correctly with no additional context. However, 'basic Timi shop profile' is somewhat vague about which fields will be returned, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly scopes what data is returned, and there are no parameter semantics that need explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the connected seller's basic Timi shop profile'), making the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the siblings get_business_overview and get_business_trends; the distinction is only implicit through the phrase 'basic Timi shop profile.'

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and description alone.

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