get_conversion_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, destructive=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: automatic pagination is bounded and the cursor is single-use with a 30s lifetime, which explains the non-idempotent hint and warns the agent not to reuse cursors. Good added context beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the pagination constraint; no filler. The semicolon-packed phrasing is slightly terse but every clause carries information.

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 return values need not be described, but for a 9-parameter read tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the required time-range parameters and all filter semantics undocumented. An agent cannot confidently construct a valid call from the description alone.

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% for 9 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only touches pagination concepts (limit/max_pages/cursor) and cursor lifetime. The two REQUIRED parameters (purchase_time_start/end), plus shop_id, order_id, product_id, and order_status, get no explanation at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Consulta conversões e comissões') with an important qualifier ('ainda não validadas') that implicitly contrasts it with the sibling get_validated_report. An agent can tell it retrieves not-yet-validated conversions, though the exact scope relative to summarize_report or export_data is not spelled out.

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 phrase 'ainda não validadas' implies the tool is the counterpart to get_validated_report, giving an implicit selection cue. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative, so the routing is left to inference.

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