Get domain performance (monthly)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about default output format ('Default to markdown output; pass format='json' for structured data') and the metrics included. No contradictions with annotations, but no additional behavioral specifics (e.g., rate limits, data source constraints) are provided.

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 a concise two sentences: the first defines core functionality, the second provides usage examples and a format option. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information, and each sentence serves a purpose. Ideal brevity for an AI agent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what metrics are returned, how to query (examples), and format options. It does not detail the JSON response structure, but that is acceptable without an output schema. The tool is relatively simple, and the description is sufficient for effective use.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already well-documented (e.g., domains stripping protocol, date format, country enum). The description adds minimal extra meaning—only the format parameter hint about human-readable vs. machine-parseable output is slightly beyond the schema's 'description'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 the tool returns a monthly timeseries of key e-commerce metrics (revenue, sessions, etc.) for one or more domains over a date range. Examples of natural language queries are provided, and the title includes 'monthly' to distinguish from daily granularity. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 offers concrete usage examples ('how did adidas.com perform in Q1 2024', 'compare nike.com and puma.com session volume YoY'), which help the agent understand when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for daily data should use grips_get_daily_performance) or compare with alternative sibling tools.

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