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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: imported verdicts never overwrite Fictura's own SDK-resolved attribution, and filtering is on install date rather than event date. No mention of result size limits or pagination, hence not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the returned content, then a behavioral caveat, then the alternative. The opening clause ('What the AppsFlyer import brought in about where people came from') is slightly wordy but still earns its place by framing the data as imported attribution.

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 burden of describing results, and it does name the breakdown dimensions (source, acquisition vs retargeting, top campaigns). Missing detail on whether figures are user counts versus other metrics and on any result-size cap keeps it below 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 description coverage is 100%, so since/until/top_campaigns are already documented with formats, bounds and default. The description only adds that the date filter applies to install date and that top campaigns are part of the output, which is marginal over the schema.

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 precisely what is returned: imported attributions of people, split by media source (organic included), by acquisition vs retargeting, plus top campaigns. The 'imported AppsFlyer' scoping and the named breakdowns distinguish it cleanly from get_attribution_report and get_acquisition_report without opening any 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 alternative for a different question ('For revenue and ROAS by source, use get_attribution_report with view=kpis'), including the exact parameter value. It doesn't explicitly exclude the other attribution/acquisition siblings, but the routing guidance for the main ambiguity is concrete.

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