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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: the data source is Nuira's model rather than platform-reported figures, the window is fixed at 30 days, and the credit split is 30/40/30 position-based. It stops short of stating freshness/latency or how returns or unattributed sales are treated.

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?

Front-loads the key differentiator (Nuira attribution vs. platform figures) in the first clause and ends with the sibling redirect. The opening sentence is long and clause-dense, but every clause carries distinct information.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description is the sole carrier of meaning and does the job: it names the grouping dimensions, the attribution methodology, the multi-touch metric, and the last-touch comparison. Nothing an agent needs to select and call this tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter syntax to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no space on arguments and instead explains the shape of the data returned.

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 (sales performance by campaign and channel, over 30 days) and pins down the data provenance ('NUIRA ATTRIBUTION, not the platforms' figures'). It explicitly separates itself from get_top_products and get_product_performance, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition ('questions about campaigns, attribution, or which channel really earned a sale') and names the two sibling alternatives for the catalogue-sales case. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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