Dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value beyond them: default date window (this month), inclusive end date semantics, which revenue states are reported (paid vs pending, earned vs unpaid), and that amounts are in the store's currency.

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, front-loaded with the one-line summary before the detailed enumeration. There is mild redundancy — the metrics listed in the first sentence are re-enumerated in the second — but the structured expansion into revenue/provider/booking/rating buckets is useful rather than wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly across four metric families. Only minor gaps remain (per-item breakdowns, whether zero-activity dates appear), which are unlikely to affect an invocation decision for a two-optional-param read tool.

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 coverage is 100% — both start_date and end_date already document the YYYY-MM-DD format and their defaults. The description's 'this month by default' merely restates the schema defaults and adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (store totals / admin Dashboard) and enumerates the metrics returned — revenue, provider pay, bookings, ratings, referrals — plus a breakdown into bookings, custom invoices and separate charges. That clearly separates it from the entity-listing siblings (list_bookings, list_charges, list_invoices), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Returns the figures of the admin Dashboard for the dates given (this month by default)' tells the agent it is a reporting call with optional dates, but there is no explicit 'use this when you want aggregates, use list_* when you want line items' guidance or any exclusion.

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