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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: output is a text summary plus a full report object in structuredContent, the default 30d window, and the important caveat that a partner argument is ignored for partner-scoped tokens. It does not mention cost, latency or pagination, but the added detail is substantive.

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 core content is front-loaded, but the middle is a long parenthetical enumeration of report sections that reads as a feature dump rather than routed information. It is informative yet denser than it needs to be for an agent choosing a tool.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by stating the report arrives as a text summary plus a structuredContent object, and it names the scope of the analysis. The main remaining gap is the absence of any relationship to the overlapping sibling tools.

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 both parameters (window enum, partner) are already documented, including the partner-scoped-token caveat. The description's example names ('Air Canada', 'MSC Cruises') restate rather than extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (per-partner analytics report) and enumerates its sections: question intents, conversion funnel, AI visibility, content gaps and bid ranges. An agent can tell it is an analytics read, not a booking action. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling partner_visibility_report, which appears to overlap on the AI-visibility portion.

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?

Usage is implied by the report contents and the instruction to pass a partner name, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the close sibling partner_visibility_report or usage_totals. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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