Customer Growth Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it 'Shows growth rates and trends,' which is output-related rather than behavioral. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, computation method, limitations) are disclosed, so the description adds limited value beyond 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 extremely concise: two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the core function. Every word contributes meaning, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns beyond just 'growth rates and trends.' It does not mention fields like customer names, revenue amounts, or growth rate calculations, leaving the output structure somewhat vague. For a read-only analytics tool, this is a moderate gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions the high-level concept of comparing revenue across periods, which is consistent with the 'current_period' and 'compare_to' parameters but adds no new detail.

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's function: identifying growing and declining customers by comparing revenue across periods. It uses a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('customers') with a clear analytical scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fortnox_period_comparison or fortnox_top_customers, which could also analyze growth or period trends.

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 implies use for customer growth analysis but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fortnox_period_comparison or fortnox_top_customers. There are no stated exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be preferred, leaving the usage context only implicit.

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