get_shop_performance_hourly_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say what 'performance' measures (GMV, orders, visitors?), whether date defaults to today when blank, or how currency conversion behaves — all material for interpreting a read tool. Output schema existence lifts the bar slightly, but the core behavioral meaning is unexplained.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and granularity, with the format hint placed immediately after the date reference. No filler, though the second sentence is a fragment rather than a usage rule.

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 structure need not be described, and the date format is covered. Still, for a 3-parameter performance tool with zero annotation and schema-description coverage, the missing explanation of currency handling and optional-parameter defaults leaves gaps.

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; it does add the YYYY-MM-DD format for date and the role of seller_name. However, currency (default USD) is never mentioned and the fact that all three parameters are optional with defaults is not surfaced.

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 performance') plus a scoping dimension ('by hour') and required date format, which separates it from the aggregate get_shop_performance_tool. It never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Only guidance is 'Use seller_name to specify shop,' which is a parameter hint rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no indication of when to pick hourly performance over get_shop_performance_tool or get_shop_products_performance_tool, and no prerequisites.

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