get_channel_comparison

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool compares performance but gives no insight into whether it is read-only, destructive, or has limits. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from this description.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence captures the core action and metrics; the second adds supported comparison types. No extraneous words. Information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.

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?

While the description lists example metrics, it does not explain the output structure (e.g., whether it returns a table, percentages, or raw numbers). Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context on the expected results to ensure correct tool invocation.

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% for both parameters (start_date and end_date). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely re-emphasizes the date range concept. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: comparing performance metrics (revenue, orders, average order value) across channels/stores over the same period. It also specifies supported comparisons (online vs. store, between stores), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_channel_detail or get_sales_summary.

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 usage for comparative analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling tools offers some guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit usage directives.

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