how_is_business_doing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the output content (completed/cancelled jobs, production value) and the plain-English nature of the response. No contradiction with annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded with example questions, followed by a compact summary of the output metrics. It is efficient but could be slightly cleaner in formatting the example questions.

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?

For a simple read-only snapshot tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the core purpose and output content. However, the complete lack of parameter semantics and absence of usage exclusions leave gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly, especially with three optional date-related parameters.

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 parameter coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain how 'days', 'end_date', or 'start_date' affect the snapshot. The only hint is the example 'this month', but no explicit parameter meaning is provided, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 answers natural-language questions like 'How is business doing?' and 'How many jobs did we finish this month?', and identifies the specific output: a plain-English operations snapshot with jobs completed, cancelled, and production value. This distinguishes it from financial or route-specific siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool by providing example user questions that should trigger it. It implies this is for high-level business snapshots rather than detailed reports, but it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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