get_order_leaders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains mode semantics (date acceptance per mode) but doesn't disclose return format, edge cases (e.g., ties, no customers found), or any filtering/scoping behavior beyond the two modes. This is adequate but lacks rich behavioral context.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds functional details. It would earn a 5 with slightly clearer separation of mode semantics, but the density of information per word is high.

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 tool with zero parameters in the schema, the description covers the main functional dimensions (what modes exist, date handling). However, it lacks details on output shape, potential error conditions, or ordering behavior, which an agent might need. Given the tool's simplicity, it's reasonably complete but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema is empty (no properties defined), so the description fully compensates by documenting 'mode' parameter with its two values and date parameters in terms of format and applicability. Since schema coverage is listed as 100% but the schema literally has no properties, the description is the only source of parameter meaning and does it well.

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?

The description clearly states the tool finds a customer with highest spend or most non-cancelled orders, which is a specific purpose distinguishing it from revenue/product-focused siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for contrast, so it loses a point for not differentiating from alternatives.

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 implies usage through mode-based guidance (highest_spend vs most_orders) and date handling, but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_customer_metrics. The mode distinction provides some usage context, but no exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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