printful_get_store_stats

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the 6-month date range limit (a behavioral constraint not in annotations) and outlines the return metrics (sales, costs, profit, etc.), which helps the agent understand what data to expect. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second details returns, and the third specifies a key constraint. There's no wasted verbiage.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving aggregated statistics), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, returns, and a key constraint. However, it lacks explicit error handling or prerequisite info (e.g., authentication needs), though annotations hint at openWorldHint.

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 has high description coverage (all parameters are well-documented with titles and descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'store_id' or 'report_types' further). It only implies date range parameters through context.

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's purpose: 'Get store statistics for a date range.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('store statistics'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_stores' or 'list_orders' by focusing on aggregated metrics rather than listing individual items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar statistical tools (though none are listed among siblings).

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 provides some usage context by stating 'Date range cannot exceed 6 months,' which implies when not to use it (for longer ranges). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when to choose this over other tools like 'list_orders' for detailed data. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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