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

With no annotations, the description takes on revealing the key non-obvious blind spot: creative and ad counts refer to delivery activity while exposure is a lifetime reference rather than daily incremental. This is a valuable behavioral clue that prevents misassignment of metrics. It does not go further (e.g., data availability or pagination), but the essentials are conveyed.

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 that are direct and well-ordered: first the core action, then the clarifying semantic caveat. Every word earns its place, no filler.

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?

The description covers the tool’s purpose, the most important output interpretation (exposure lifetime vs daily activity), and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. Missing an explicit output structure (since no output is present) is a minor gap; describing the outputs beyond the caveat would add robustness.

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 description does not need to repeat parameter behavior. It adds marginally by placing the date range in the context of 'daily trends', but it does not go beyond the schema's own date_to/date_from/game_id explanations. Baseline 3 is suitable.

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 it retrieves delivery trends for a date range, with a specific discrepancy by distinguishing between creative/ad counts and exposure. This aligns with the pattern of sibling tools (e.g., get_game_daily_impressions, get_game_rank_trend) while making the tool's focus immediate and specific.

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 implies its use case (daily delivery trends) but does not explicitly differentiate from adjacent tools like get_game_delivery_summary or get_game_install_trend. No when-not-to or alternative routing is given, so the agent has to infer when to choose this over the many get_game_* siblings.

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