get_customer_service_performance_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: the date format, inclusive/exclusive semantics, the underlying endpoint, and the fact that it bypasses a 60-day restriction. It does not disclose auth/permission needs, rate limits, or error behavior, so it is only partially complete.

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 date semantics and provenance in compact sentences. The endpoint/migration notes are slightly meta but still earn their place by explaining scope behavior; no filler.

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 return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are addressed in the description. For a 3-param read tool it is largely complete, with only auth/permission context and optionality of seller_name missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents the date format plus inclusive (support_date_ge) and exclusive (support_date_lt) semantics and explains seller_name's role for scoping. It stops short of clarifying the default/optional nature of seller_name.

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 and resource ('Get shop customer-service performance') and names concrete metrics (after-sales handling time, IM dissatisfaction rate). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling performance tools (get_shop_performance_tool, get_product_performance_tool, etc.) that cover different domains.

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?

It conveys when the tool is useful (a custom date window, replacing a locked 60-day window) and how to scope by shop via seller_name, so usage is implied. However, it never names an alternative or an exclusion condition, so the agent must infer routing among the many sibling performance tools.

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