Sub-ID report

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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world traits, so the bar is lower, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavior beyond them: cursor pagination with the round-trip instruction 'pass the returned `after` to get the next page'. It also flags the hex-id requirement, but does not mention the 60-day range / 90-day lookback limits (left to the schema).

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?

A tight two-clause sentence with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. 'Works for any format' is slightly vague and costs a little precision, keeping it short of a 5.

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 15-parameter report tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is grouped, how pagination works, and the required id. It conveys the shape of the return (earnings by sub-ID level) but omits any note on filter interaction or the date-range caps that constrain calling it correctly.

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 93%, so the schema already documents nearly all 15 parameters, including date bounds and the `after` cursor. The description only reinforces the id format and the grouping parameter, adding little syntax or meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: 'Sell-order earnings grouped by up to three sub-ID levels (sub_id_1..3)'. That is clearly distinct from siblings like get_order_stats or get_balance_stats, though no sibling is named or contrasted explicitly.

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?

'Works for any format; needs the hex order id' states a prerequisite but gives no when-to-use guidance versus the other stats/report siblings, and no exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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