get_store_performance

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses two key behaviors: it is a read-only operation ('read') and that it is merely a stub locally. This goes beyond what annotations would provide, though it does not detail response characteristics.

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 efficiently convey purpose, read status, and the critical stub limitation. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 description covers the essential purpose and the important stub disclosure. However, with no output schema, it fails to describe what the returned insights contain, leaving the agent to infer response structure. For a simple read tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'traffic, page, source, tag, and sales insights') that hints at parameter relevance but does not elaborate individually.

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 it reads 'Brand Store traffic, page, source, tag, and sales insights' and labels it as a read tool. This specificity, combined with the sibling list dominated by creation/update/archive tools, ensures strong differentiation.

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 includes a critical usage warning: 'Hosted endpoint only; this local stdio server is an introspection stub.' This tells agents the tool is non-functional locally. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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