get_shop_performance_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses enumeration values for granularity ('ALL' vs '1D') and the date format, which are not in the schema, but it says nothing about permissions, whether multiple shops can be queried at once, pagination, or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter details, with no filler. Slightly telegraphic ('granularity:', 'Use seller_name...') but each sentence contributes information.

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 described. For a 5-parameter, zero-coverage, annotation-free tool, the description covers purpose, granularity, date format, and shop selection but leaves currency and the date-boundary semantics undocumented.

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% for 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains granularity values, the YYYY-MM-DD date format, and the role of seller_name, but currency is never mentioned and the inclusive/exclusive semantics implied by start_date_ge/end_date_lt are left unexplained.

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 (shop-level sales performance) and names the returned metrics (GMV, orders, customers) plus the VIDEO/LIVE/PRODUCT_CARD breakdown. It is clearly distinguishable from the many get_*_performance siblings by its shop-level scope, though it never names the closest alternative (get_shop_performance_hourly_tool) or contrasts itself with get_shop_products_performance_tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the hour-level or product-level performance siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only routing hint is the parameter note 'Use seller_name to specify shop,' which is invocation help, not usage guidance.

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