wafle_analytics_by_period

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it returns revenue and orders aggregated into time buckets, which tells the agent what kind of data to expect and how it is grouped. This is useful non-obvious behavior not captured by annotations or schema enums alone.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does; the second provides immediate usage examples. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only analytics tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage well. However, it does not explain the meaning of from_ts/to_ts or how custom ranges work, and it does not specify return formatting (e.g., currency, timezone). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent trying to construct a precise call, especially when 'custom' range is used.

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 only 40% (2 of 5 params have descriptions). The description helps clarify the 'bucket' parameter by listing day/week/month, and implies the 'range' parameter via 'last 30d', but it does not mention from_ts/to_ts for custom ranges. These two timestamp parameters are undocumented in the schema and remain unexplained, leaving a significant gap in parameter semantics.

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 performs a time-series breakdown of analytics, specifically revenue and orders, bucketed by day/week/month. This distinguishes it from wafle_analytics_summary (which likely provides a single aggregate summary) and other sibling tools. The verb 'breakdown' plus the resource 'analytics' and the scope of bucket intervals makes the purpose explicit.

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 explicitly says 'Use for charts and compare last 30d to previous 30d workflows,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools (e.g., wafle_analytics_summary), so it lacks the full when/when-not/alternatives structure that would earn a 5.

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