Get Store Performance Report

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

With no annotations, the description still conveys that this is an aggregated read-only acquisitions report and constrains the meaning of traffic_source to Play's own channels. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or data freshness, but those are less critical for a read-only report whose output shape is covered by 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose, the second packs dimension semantics and the routing to the sibling tool. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

The schema documents all parameters and their defaults, the output schema covers the return shape, and the description supplies the metric and dimension semantics plus the correct alternative for other metrics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or disambiguate this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating the dimension choices and the exact traffic_source categories (Explore, Search, Ads/referrals), which helps the agent choose the right parameter value.

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 identifies the exact metric ('Store-listing acquisitions') and the two supported dimensions ('traffic source or country'), so an agent knows precisely what this report returns. It also differentiates from the conversion-focused sibling by naming the alternative tool for visitors and conversion rate.

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?

It gives an explicit decision rule: use this for acquisitions by traffic source/country, and use get_store_conversion_report for visitors and conversion rate. The clarification that traffic sources are Play's own Explore, Search, and Ads/referrals prevents confusion with marketing-source tools.

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