getABOrdersReport

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 only says the tool 'gets' report data and includes metrics, but it does not mention authentication needs, read-only safety, default date-range behavior, pagination, errors, or whether the report is generated synchronously.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the additional content detail is relevant and concise.

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 simple two-parameter schema, the description is mostly adequate for basic invocation, but it lacks output-schema details and does not clarify what happens when reportInterval is omitted or how the returned report data is structured. The absence of annotations and output schema makes this a minimum-viable but not fully complete definition.

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 already describes both parameters clearly: id is the Activity ID and reportInterval is an optional ISO 8601 date range. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('orders report data'), and the target type ('A/B Test activity'). It also names high-level contents ('conversion metrics and order information'), which helps distinguish it from sibling report tools like getXTOrdersReport or getABPerformanceReport.

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 given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling report tools, nor are there any exclusions or alternative suggestions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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