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.