get_tacos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation and notes that the local server is a stub (hosted endpoint only), which is important safety context. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving gaps.

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 very concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding a critical note about the stub environment. It avoids waste, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 the lack of output schema, the description fails to explain return format (e.g., aggregated number vs table, data structure). With 7 optional parameters and nested objects in schema, a more complete description is needed to guide correct invocation. The omission of output details and parameter combinations leaves significant gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing 'per ASIN' which matches the asin parameter. No additional details are provided on how start_date, end_date, or other parameters filter or affect results.

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 specifies the tool retrieves 'Total ad cost of sales per ASIN' and labels it as a read operation, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_campaign_performance, and the mention of 'introspection stub' may confuse an agent about actual functionality.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to filter by ASIN vs SKU, or when to use other financial metric tools. The description lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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