detect_sales_anomalies

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as the need for a sampling-capable client with graceful fallback and specific permission requirements. It does not contradict 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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence covers prerequisites and constraints. Every word earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations provide read-only safety, the description covers the essential context: purpose, prerequisites, and fallback behavior. Minor gaps like date format are not critical with an output schema present.

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 description mentions a 'window' with 'default: today' but does not explain the meaning or format of 'date_from' and 'date_to'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it leaves parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 function: to flag unusual refund/discount/sales patterns within a time window. It uses a specific verb 'flag' and resource 'patterns', differentiating it from sibling tools that list or summarize data.

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 clear context: it is a read-only analysis tool requiring specific permissions (PAYMENTS_R and ORDERS_R) and a sampling-capable client. This helps an agent understand when to invoke it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for similar tasks.

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