get_account_kpis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states the auth requirement and clarifies what specific KPI codes measure, including exclusions like delivery fee discounts. However, it does not mention error behavior, invalid-code handling, or the response structure beyond saying each KPI 'returns a value'.

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 front-loaded with purpose and remains focused. The known-code list is somewhat long but earns its place by adding operational value. Minor redundancy exists with the schema's property description, but overall it is not bloated.

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?

Given the tool's simple one-parameter shape and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, auth requirements, and key code semantics. It could be more complete by describing the exact response format or invalid-code behavior, but it is sufficient for a straightforward read-only KPI retrieval tool.

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?

The schema already documents the single 'codes' parameter at 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantic detail by enumerating known codes 14, 15, and 16 with specific meanings and exclusions. This goes beyond the schema's generic explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and identifies a clear resource: loyalty and financial KPI metrics for the authenticated user's Carrefour France account. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling loyalty tools by emphasizing numeric KPI codes and dashboard display usage.

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 a clear use context: displaying account performance indicators on the loyalty/fidelity dashboard. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the intended scenario is well conveyed.

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