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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: dates are inclusive and UTC, the win-rate denominator is signed plus declined, and the result is null when nothing is decided yet. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or note any permission/auth requirements, so it falls short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the population definition front-loaded and the metric formula and null case following immediately. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and its metric definition covers the core semantics well. The remaining gap is the unexplained shop_id scoping (single shop vs. all shops), which matters for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by clarifying that 'from' and 'to' are inclusive and interpreted in UTC. However, shop_id is never mentioned in the description and no date format is given (the YYYY-MM-DD pattern lives only in the schema), leaving a required parameter semantically unexplained.

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 defines the exact metric ('win rate is signed over signed plus declined') and the population it is computed over ('quotes made between two dates ... and sent'). This is far more specific than the tool name alone and lets an agent distinguish it from reports like reports_revenue or quotes_activity.

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 scope is implied by defining the metric (sent quotes within a date range), but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over sibling reports such as reports_revenue, quotes_activity, or reports_run. Usage must be inferred from the metric definition rather than stated.

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