analytics_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says it 'generates' a summary, which implies a read operation, but it does not state whether it modifies data, requires special permissions, has performance implications, or how data freshness is handled. This lack of disclosure is a significant gap.

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 is front-loaded with the action ('Genera') and resource ('resumen ejecutivo completo'), followed by the specific contents. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately summarizes what the report contains but leaves out details about the return format, whether it's read-only, and how to interpret the aggregated metrics. It's sufficient for basic understanding but not fully complete for an agent that needs to know output structure or side effects.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (period with enum/default and providers with description). The description adds no additional parameter-related meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Genera resumen ejecutivo completo') and lists the included metrics (revenue, orders, top products, stock, customers, conversion), making the tool's function evident. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling analytics_* tools, but the 'completo' summary scope is distinctive enough.

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?

The description implies this is for obtaining a comprehensive business overview, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the more granular analytics_* sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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