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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: data is aggregated and de-identified, groups under 10 people are withheld, and each figure states its sample size and method.

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 core purpose, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of report contents. It is a single long sentence rather than a run-on, and every clause (sample size, suppression rule, de-identification) carries information.

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 or parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, listing the report's sections and stating that each figure includes sample size and method. It is complete enough for an agent to know what comes back; only the response's exact shape remains unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. The description correctly implies a single, unscoped output with no filtering options.

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 resource and enumerates exactly what the report contains (shipped/delivered orders, transit times, refunds, weight change, lab reports, reviews) with the source ('from its own records'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_lab_results or list_my_orders, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 description explains what the report contains but gives no guidance on when an agent should call it versus alternatives (e.g., get_store_info or get_product for business credibility questions). No prerequisites, triggers, or exclusions are mentioned.

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