Top products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the main safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the ranking criteria, but it does not disclose behavioral details like sort order, handling of missing date ranges, or what data is included. With annotations, the bar is lower, and the description adds some value, but not rich behavioral context, justifying a 3.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that covers all key aspects: the action (rank), the resource (products), the metrics (revenue/units/rating), and the time scope (date range). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 ranking tool, the description is mostly complete: it specifies the purpose, ranking metrics, and date range. It does not describe the return format, but the tool likely returns a ranked list, which is implied. The optional parameters and their defaults are defined in the schema, so the description covers the essential usage context.

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 does explain the 'metric' enum values (revenue, units, rating) and the 'from/to' date range, but it does not describe the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter names provide some self-evident meaning, but a fuller explanation of all parameters would elevate the score.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Rank products by revenue, units sold or average review rating over a date range.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_products' (rank vs. search) and 'sales_summary' (product-level ranking vs. aggregate summary).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to rank products by one of three specific metrics within a date range. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unmistakable, aligning with a 'clear context, no exclusions' rating.

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