list_purchase_stats

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

The description discloses ordering by most recent purchase and the inclusion of frequency data, but it does not specify whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit/offset. Without annotations, the description carries a partial burden but adds only basic context.

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 sentence that conveys the essential purpose and output ordering without any extraneous words. It is appropriately efficient.

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?

While the description states the output, it lacks details on the structure of frequency data, pagination behavior, and the meaning of the includeIgnored parameter. Given the presence of sibling tools like set_purchase_stat_ignored, more context on ignored products would be helpful. The description is minimally adequate for a list endpoint but incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters (limit, offset, includeIgnored), so the description does not need to add much. It adds context about frequency data and ordering, but this is not tied to specific parameter semantics beyond the schema's documentation.

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 clearly states the tool lists previously purchased products with frequency data, ordered by most recent purchase. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_purchase_stat_ignored, which suggests related functionality but not the same purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as search_products or get_product_list. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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