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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety burden is light. The description adds meaningful beyond-annotation context: it is free on every plan and that viewing tops up stale data in the background, a non-obvious side effect. It does not describe pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter, which keeps it at a 4.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded with the view name, and the sentence is dense but information-rich with no filler. The long run-on enumeration of view contents would scan better as structured bullets, which is the only reason it is not a 5.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of describing what each view returns, effectively standing in for the missing output schema, and it notes plan availability and background refresh. It omits pagination semantics and authentication guidance (uid vs bearer_token vs API key), preventing a 5.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value for the undocumented `view` parameter by explaining what each enum value produces, and it clarifies `mode`/`metric` are overview-only and `collection_id` targets a single collection. Minor gaps remain around uid, bearer_token, and account_ids interactions.

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 names a specific resource (the Creator Tracking dashboard) and enumerates what each of its four views (summary, overview, payouts, collections) returns, so an agent knows exactly what it is fetching. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_tracked_accounts or refresh_tracking, keeping it below a 5.

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?

By listing what each view contains, the description implicitly guides the agent to pick the right view, which is genuine usage guidance for the main selector. However, it never states when to use this dashboard versus sibling tools like list_tracked_videos or refresh_tracking, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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