Get shipping stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context: the 30-day default, the one-year ceiling, and the USD denomination of all money values. It does not describe response shape or size, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 opening clause front-loads what the tool returns and the date-range scope before the metric enumeration. The long list of charts is dense but each item earns its place as return-value specification given there is no output schema; only the 'as on Reports' phrasing is slightly redundant with the second sentence.

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 returns and does so thoroughly: metric families, currency, default window, and maximum span. What is missing is the response structure and whether the data is grouped or flat, a moderate gap for a report-style 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% and both date parameters are documented with format and defaults, so baseline would be 3. The description adds the one-year maximum span, a constraint absent from the schema, plus the default window, which is meaningful guidance for setting the range.

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 the resource (a Reports-style aggregate over labels, spend, savings, tracking and destinations) and scopes it to a date range, which is materially different from the list_* siblings that return individual records. It never names an alternative explicitly, but the enumerated metric set makes the aggregate nature unmistakable.

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?

It gives the operating envelope (default last 30 days, at most a year) and anchors the tool to 'as on Reports', which implies when it is appropriate. It does not say when to prefer this over export_report, list_transactions or list_carrier_adjustments, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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