firestarter_seller_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the aggregated/analytics nature of the data (not raw records) and hinting at a time-series structure via the '30-day daily breakdown.' No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and metrics, the second provides the usage trigger. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only analytics tool, the description is complete: it states what data it returns (metrics list) and when to invoke it. Because there is no output schema, the description could specify the exact return format/field names, which is a minor gap, but for this tool's simplicity it is largely sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. Schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description correctly introduces no parameter guidance since none exist.

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 verb ('view'), a resource ('seller revenue and order analytics'), and lists the concrete metrics delivered (total revenue, order count, AOV, 30-day breakdown). The scope is clear and it distinguishes itself from siblings like firestarter_seller_orders (order-level detail) and firestarter_market_earnings (market-level).

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?

Gives explicit context: 'Use when a seller asks about their performance, earnings, or sales trends.' This clearly signals the triggering scenario. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus firestarter_seller_orders for raw order detail), so it stops at clear context without exclusions.

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