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

The description explicitly says 'Upserts the day's totals,' which is a write operation, directly contradicting the annotation readOnlyHint=true. Although the description discloses cap-based point recomputation and return behavior, the contradiction is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent about the tool's 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 dense but well organized: core action, metric definitions, upsert semantics with caps, return values, then auth. Every clause contributes operational detail, with no filler, though the length is somewhat high.

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 output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining return values ('today's counted numbers and trailing-7-day points') and prerequisites. It also covers the scoring mechanism and the placement source, giving an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema describes only order_id as 'from the feed,' leaving serves, recalls, and clicks undocumented. The description compensates fully by defining each metric, specifying caps and multipliers (serves ≤100×1, recalls ≤50×2, clicks ≤20×5), and clarifying that totals are upserted rather than summed from claims.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Tell the network what you actually did TODAY with one placement from the feed.' It then defines all three metric fields with plain-language meanings, making the tool's job unambiguous. The title is reinforced rather than merely restated.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (reporting today's actual activity for a single placement from the feed) and gives prerequisites ('Requires Authorization: Bearer <JWT> and adnet_join'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid, so exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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