top_customers

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context: the metric is net of refunds, n is bounded to 1-100, and the returned fields are enumerated. However, it says nothing about ordering/ties, date semantics, or whether the result is truncated, so it is only partially complete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the identifying clause and followed by the constraint and return summary. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-field listing is belt-and-braces rather than a gap. The remaining omissions (date format, tie-breaking, empty-result behavior) are minor for a read-only analytical tool, making the definition adequate for correct 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully constrains 'n is 1-100' (the schema gives only a default of 10 with no bounds) and signals that the date range is optional, but it never states the expected format for start/end or whether the bounds are inclusive, leaving two of three parameters underspecified.

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 verb+resource and a precise ranking metric: 'the n customers with the highest net revenue (after refunds)', which sharply distinguishes it from a generic query tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like sales_summary or refund_rate, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by 'in an optional date range,' which tells the agent the tool is scoped to a time window, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming of the alternatives (run_sql, sales_summary) that overlap with this result set.

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