wafle_analytics_summary

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds the list of KPIs and the notion of a time window, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, response format, or handling of custom ranges. This provides some value beyond annotations but no significant extra detail.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first front-loads the KPI list, the second gives direct usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only summary tool, the description covers purpose, KPIs, and usage context. The only noticeable gap is lack of explicit explanation for from_ts/to_ts, but the tool's simplicity and the schema's enum for 'range' keep this acceptable.

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 50%, covering slug and range but not from_ts/to_ts. The description mentions 'window' and KPIs, but does not explain how custom ranges map to from_ts/to_ts. It partially compensates but leaves a gap for the undocumented parameters.

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 specifically states it provides 'high-level KPIs for a store over a window' and enumerates specific metrics (orders, revenue, AOV, etc.), clearly indicating the tool's function. It also differentiates itself as the 'starting point' for store health questions, distinguishing it from more specialized sibling tools.

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 instructs to use this tool as the starting point for any 'how is store X doing?' question, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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