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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the returned figures are 'verified' and 'backed by individually signed spend attestation tokens,' which adds some context about data integrity. However, it does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or permissions required.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds valuable detail about data verification. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description explains the output consists of daily GMV figures with verification details. However, it does not specify output structure, ordering, date format, or pagination, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100% as the only parameter ('days') is described in the schema (default 7, max 90). The description adds the term 'N-day' but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves a rolling N-day GMV trend summary, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource as a trend summary. It implies differentiation from sibling tools like get-daily-gmv (single day) and get-cumulative-gmv (cumulative), but does not explicitly distinguish, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-daily-gmv or get-cumulative-gmv. It vaguely mentions 'enabling trend analysis' but does not specify use cases or when not to use it.

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