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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it explains the root cause of the discrepancy (ad blockers, consent banners, iOS ATT, 10-30% pixel capture), enumerates returned fields, and defines a severity taxonomy. It stops short of stating read-only/side-effect guarantees or rate/limit behavior, and there is no output schema to lean on.

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 the core purpose, then mechanism, then return shape, then usage trigger — a logical order. It is somewhat dense with parenthetical enumerations, but every clause conveys actionable information rather than 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?

For a read-only, three-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by describing return fields and the domain reasoning behind the metric. The remaining gap is the absence of an explicit read-only/effect statement and pagination note beyond what the _offset schema already provides.

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% and all three parameters (_offset, startDate, endDate) are fully documented in the schema, including defaulting behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (reconcile) and a precise resource (ad-spend numbers between Triple Whale pixel attribution and ad-platform APIs), naming the exact channels covered. No sibling tool in the list does this, so the differentiation is implicit but unmistakable.

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 a clear triggering condition: 'Use whenever quoting ROAS — pixel ROAS in isolation is reliably wrong on paid channels with bad pixel coverage.' This tells the agent when to reach for it, but names no explicit when-not case or alternative sibling tool for comparison.

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