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

The description discloses that the tool returns a cryptographically signed token with specific fields and mentions the live beta cumulative total. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on side effects, authentication, or rate limits, so transparency is moderate.

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 three sentences and includes necessary details without significant fluff. It could be slightly more streamlined but is generally well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value effectively. It covers purpose, parameter behavior, and output format. While missing error handling and endpoint details, it is largely complete for a straightforward read-type tool.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying the startDate parameter's purpose with the specific default date (2026-01-27), giving contextual meaning beyond the schema's generic description.

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 tool gets cumulative GMV from a public cumulative feed and mentions the specific beta/alpha context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get-trailing-gmv' or 'get-daily-gmv', which could lead to confusion.

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 suggests providing startDate to bound the window but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to similar sibling tools. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which GMV tool is appropriate.

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