Get top customers by number of orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses exclusions (cancelled orders), tie-breaking (customer id ascending), default limit, half-open interval interpretation, validation (from must be earlier than to), and the effect of omitting bounds. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 detailed but every sentence adds necessary information: ranking logic, exclusions, tie-breaking, defaults, interval semantics, validation, and intended usage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and maintains a logical flow without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects for correct invocation: what the tool does, how parameters behave, edge cases, and validation. An agent could call this tool reliably with only the provided description.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: 'from' and 'to' are defined as YYYY-MM-DD with half-open interval semantics and omission behavior, and 'limit' is explained with default and purpose. This exceeds what the schema provides.

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 verb 'ranks' with the resource 'customers by how many orders they placed', making the purpose immediately clear. It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_top_customers_by_spend by specifying the metric (orders).

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 explicitly provides a use case ('which customer placed the most orders?') and explains the parameter behavior including defaults and interval semantics. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the unique metric and interval handling give clear context for when to use it.

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