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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations by specifying the data is from 'this month's traffic', indicating time-dependence. No contradictions with annotations exist, and no side effects are implied.

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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the return type, the purpose, and a secondary use case, all while remaining focused.

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 sufficiently explains what is returned (agent ids, customer ids, teams) and why it is useful, including the time frame. While no output schema is provided, the description gives enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role without ambiguity.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. The description does not need to explain inputs, and the baseline for high coverage applies. The mention of 'this month's traffic' describes output context rather than parameter semantics.

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 returns agent ids, customer ids, and teams from current traffic, with the specific purpose of using them as budget scope_ids. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing this is an attribution sanity check, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use these as budget scope_ids rather than guessing identifiers' directly tells the agent when to use this tool. The phrase 'quickest attribution sanity check' further clarifies the appropriate scenario for invocation.

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