Get sales and downloads summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: it is a Pro feature, implying an entitlement check. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or what happens when the vendor number is omitted (the schema only hints at this).

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?

Three terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler — the verb and resource lead, and the Pro caveat closes. It is perhaps too terse to earn a 5, but every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of describing returns, and it does so only summarily (units, proceeds, territory). Given three fully documented parameters and a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but leaves return shape and entitlement-failure behavior unspecified.

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 frequency, report_date formats, and the vendor_number sourcing note are already documented. The description adds no syntax or default information beyond the schema; 'territory' is mentioned but is report content, not an input parameter, so it does not map to any field.

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+resource ('Download sales/downloads summary') and enumerates the report contents (units, proceeds, territory), which is enough to distinguish it from the release/metadata/review management siblings. It does not, however, name any sibling or explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

'Pro feature' is the only usage guidance, and it is a licensing caveat rather than a when-to-use rule. The description never says when an agent should reach for this report versus other analytics/reporting tools, nor what prerequisites (e.g., vendor number, Pro entitlement) must be satisfied first.

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