get_product_performance

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

The description conveys the main behavior: the tool ranks products and shows per-product metrics like AOV and share of total. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure; it clearly indicates a read-style reporting behavior but does not mention pagination, data recency, or any potential side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and then states the key output metrics, making it efficient for an agent to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderately complex reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and some return metrics but leaves the full output structure undefined. The schema covers parameter details, and the description plus schema are likely sufficient for basic invocation, but there are gaps around full return fields and any constraints on the ranking behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their defaults. The description adds some interpretive value by mentioning revenue, units sold, order count, AOV, and share of total, which maps to the sort_by enum and expected output, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific action ('Rank products'), the resource ('products'), the ranking dimensions ('revenue, units sold, or order count'), and a time scope ('for a given period'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_trending_products, but the described output is distinct enough to be recognizable.

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 when to use this tool: when an agent needs a ranked list of top products by revenue, units, or orders for a period. It does not provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or mention any alternative tool, leaving routing decisions somewhat to inference.

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