Sixty60 past purchases

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds value by disclosing the shape of the result: orders plus items plus frequency-ranked products. It omits the time window covered and how many orders are returned, which limits how well an agent can predict the payload.

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 what the tool returns and followed by the use case. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it only sketches the payload. It does not say how many orders are included, what time range they span, or whether the frequent-products list is derived from those same orders.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The phrase "most frequently bought products" loosely connects to the `top` parameter but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 the concrete resource it returns: completed orders with their items plus most frequently bought products. That is more specific than the title and lets an agent understand the payload. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling sixty60_orders, which plausibly also returns completed orders, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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?

"Useful for rebuilding a regular shop" implies the use case but gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and names no alternative. An agent must infer that sixty60_orders is for browsing history and this tool is for repeat-buying patterns.

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