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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output content but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination is involved (though the schema mentions cursor), or any side effects. It also doesn't mention data freshness, rate limits, or whether results are computed on-demand. The description focuses on 'what' not 'how' or 'side effects'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is information-dense without being verbose. The first sentence lists outcome categories and evidence, the second explains windows and conversions. It is well-structured for the amount of detail, though slightly complex due to the long list.

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 complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a good overview of what is returned (result categories, evidence, improvement rate, conversions). However, it does not explain the structure of the response, pagination details (though cursor is in schema), or how the fixed windows interact with the windowDays parameter. It is adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context about reporting windows and fixed comparison windows, which clarifies windowDays. It also mentions analytics-attributed conversions for 30/90 days, but does not map that to a specific parameter. It does not elaborate on status values or interventionId beyond the schema. Overall it adds a little but does not fully compensate for the missing 20%.

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 retrieves measured actions with specific outcome categories and evidence details. It names the resource (outcomes ledger) and the exact data returned, which distinguishes it from other get_* siblings that focus on traffic, citations, or visibility. The mention of fixed comparison windows and conversions adds specificity.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent would not know if this is the right tool for a given query without prior knowledge of the other 50+ tools.

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