Product Performance Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results are ranked top performers, which is helpful, but does not disclose details about period handling, trends, or response format beyond the schema.

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 main verb and resource, no wasted words. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 description gives a high-level overview but does not explain nuances like the optional trends comparison, date range handling, or how it differs from other analytics tools. Given the absence of an output schema and competing siblings, more context would be beneficial, but the schema fills many gaps.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 it analyzes product/customer sales performance and returns top performers ranked by revenue, quantity, or invoice count. It has a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling analytics tools like fortnox_top_customers or fortnox_period_comparison.

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 usage when one needs top sales performers, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or sibling tools.

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