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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently clarifies output semantics: 'Exposure is global creative lifetime estimated exposure, not period increments or country exposure,' 'Country shares are overlapping ad-plan target coverage,' and 'No standalone creative/ad IDs are returned.' This gives useful caveats, though it does not address failure modes or empty results.

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 compact and high-signal, using five short sentences to cover purpose, input requirements, output semantics, and caveats. No redundant phrasing or filler is present.

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, the description is largely complete: it lists the returned dimensions, clarifies date and range constraints, and documents important caveats like overlapping country shares and absence of standalone IDs. It could be slightly stronger by describing the high-level response shape, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds meaningful guidance: game_id should be 'passed unchanged,' date values must follow 'required-date and range constraints,' and sections may be omitted for all. The descriptions clarify that date ranges must not exceed 180 days and that dates are explicit requirements.

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 'Get a game's identity, deduplicated creatives/ad plans, market and platform coverage, and delivery-cadence summary in one call,' which is a specific, actionable purpose. It also distinguishes itself from single-purpose sibling tools by emphasizing the consolidated nature of the output.

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 provides important usage constraints such as 'Require explicit dates, maximum 180 days' and explains optional sections with 'Omit for all.' It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_game_daily_impressions or get_game_delivery_summary, but the 'in one call' phrasing and the exclusion of standalone IDs imply when this aggregated tool is appropriate.

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