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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context in the form of default windowing (trailing 28 days) and what each view contains, but says nothing about pagination behavior for installs, result caps, or latency for large windows.

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?

Front-loaded with a plain-English purpose statement, then a tight enumeration of the three views, then the default window. Nearly every sentence earns its place, with only the opening aphorism being slightly decorative.

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 five-parameter read-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers what each view returns and the default date range, which is what an agent needs to pick a view. Minor gaps remain around result size and breakdown interactions, but nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so all five parameters, their enums, and defaults are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the view semantics and the default window, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states — the baseline of 3 applies.

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 reporting resource and enumerates the three views (summary, kpis, installs), each with the data it exposes. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_acquisition_report or get_appsflyer_attribution_summary.

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 through the view breakdown — an agent can infer that kpis is for per-source breakdowns and installs for row-level data — and the trailing-28-day default sets context. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing advice toward the acquisition or Appsflyer siblings.

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