Get a report

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop rate limit and pointing to a rate-limiting guide, which is not derivable from any structured field.

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 short sentences with no filler. The rate-limit caveat is front-loaded, which is defensible since it is an operational precondition, though it slightly delays the core purpose statement.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 5 of them required, and no output schema, the description does little beyond the rate limit. Required-but-non-obvious inputs like aggregation_timezone and aggregation_precision carry only terse 'Native ...' schema text, and the description does not compensate for the absence of return-value documentation.

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 six parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g., how from/to interact with aggregation_timezone, or the valid report_id space) beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetches a specific analytics report') plus the scope ('for a date range'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_reports. It stops short of saying which analytics domain (sales, traffic, etc.) or what makes a report 'specific' beyond report_id.

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 date-range scoping implies usage, and the presence of list_reports as a sibling lets an agent infer the enumeration-vs-single-fetch split, but the description never states when to use this versus list_reports or what prerequisites exist. Usage is only implied, not asserted.

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