get_sku_performance_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, scope defaults, or what happens with empty optional dates. An agent learns only that it is a read of one SKU.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter hint. No filler, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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. But with 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves critical calling information (identifier format, date semantics, granularity options) unstated.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description should compensate. It only clarifies seller_name's role ('specify shop'); sku_id, currency, granularity, start_date_ge, and end_date_lt are left entirely unexplained, including the non-obvious _ge/_lt suffix semantics and the ALL granularity default.

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 single SKU performance'), which is enough to distinguish it from order/shop tools. However, it never clarifies the SKU-vs-product distinction against close siblings like get_product_performance_tool or get_shop_products_performance_tool, so differentiation is only partial.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The only guidance given is a parameter hint ('Use seller_name to specify shop'), which is not usage routing.

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