analytics_avg_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool analyzes AOV with trend, comparison, and distribution, which adds some context, but it does not disclose output format, read-only guarantees, permissions required, or any performance or rate considerations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without waste. It earns its place by naming the metric (AOV) and the analysis dimensions (trend, comparison, distribution).

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?

For a dimension with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin on critical context. It does not clarify what the comparison or distribution outputs look like, nor does it differentiate this tool from the several closely related analytics siblings; a brief usage or output note would significantly improve 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 schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions and enum values. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, though it does mention 'tendencia' (trend) which loosely maps to show_trend and group_by. The mention of 'comparison' and 'distribution' in the description has no corresponding parameters for 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 ('Analiza') with a clear resource ('el valor promedio de orden (AOV)'), and distinguishes this tool from sibling analytics tools by focusing on AOV with trend, comparison, and distribution. The name and description align with a distinct analytical purpose not covered by siblings like analytics_revenue or analytics_conversion.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided — the description never states when to prefer this tool over sibling analytics tools such as analytics_revenue, analytics_dashboard, or analytics_conversion. The intended use case is only implied by the tool name and description ('AOV'), with no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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