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 genuine context by disclosing the return content (28-day funnel metrics and tracking links), but says nothing about volume, pagination, or whether all creators are returned unfiltered.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the returned metrics. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 must carry the return-value burden and does so reasonably, specifying the funnel stages and links included. It falls slightly short on result volume/ordering and on confirming no filtering is possible, which matter for a list tool returning per-creator aggregates.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify. The only thing not stated is that the 28-day window is fixed and non-configurable, which is a minor omission for a no-arg tool.

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 the resource (creator records) and precisely enumerates the payload: a 28-day funnel per creator plus tagged tracking links. The 'list' action is carried by the name/title rather than the description, and it does not distinguish itself from nearby list_* or get_attribution_report siblings, so it stops short of 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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as list_users, get_attribution_report, or get_analytics, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the resource name.

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