get_ecommerce_sync_status

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

The description only states what the tool returns (connection status and stats). It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is a read-only operation, any destructive potential, authentication needs, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for transparency, and it falls short.

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 very concise (one line), but it front-loads the purpose. However, it lacks structure and detail. It could be considered under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 presence of 4 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling e-commerce tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the meaning of the stats, or how the parameters affect the output. The context of e-commerce integration is not elaborated.

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 parameters are adequately documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'period' enum, 'days', 'date', 'phone'). The parenthetical '[query]' hints at a query parameter but is insufficient to add value.

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 that the tool returns e-commerce sync status, including connection status and CRM customer statistics. It uses specific verbs ('Estado de sincronizacion') and resource ('e-commerce'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_ecommerce_connection' or 'get_shop_status', which may overlap in purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a connection to an e-commerce platform) or exclusions. The description lacks explicit usage context.

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