Product ranking

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 does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe output structure, pagination, or any side effects. The phrase only lists ranking metrics, which is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic output.

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 concise phrase that conveys the core purpose without any superfluous words. It is front-loaded 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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal yet adequate for a simple read-only ranking tool. It explains what the ranking is based on, but it omits context such as whether the tool is read-only, the shape of the returned data, and any behavioral caveats. For a tool of this simplicity, this is on the boundary of acceptable completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the ranking dimensions (quantity, sales, average unit price), which helps interpret the purpose of the parameters (e.g., top_n limits the ranking, start_date/end_date define the period). It does not directly map parameters to metrics but clarifies the overall semantic context.

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 '商品別ランキング（数量・売上・平均単価）' clearly identifies the resource (product ranking) and the specific metrics (quantity, sales, average unit price). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rms_daily_sales or rms_search_products by focusing on ranking. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', making it slightly less clear than a full action-oriented description.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or specific use cases. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it should be invoked.

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