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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description goes further by disclosing data-quality limits ('counts are not verified conversions') and scope exclusions ('provider engagement remains separate'), which are genuine behavioral traits not derivable from the schema.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then caveats. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. The definition is largely sufficient for a read tool, with the only shortfall being the absence of guidance on the pagination and workspace parameters.

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 0% for all five parameters. The description adds one meaningful semantic constraint — the from/to window is bounded to 90 days — but says nothing about limit, offset, or workspaceId, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Read') and resource ('observed link clicks and self-reported outcomes') with clear scope. It distinguishes its content from provider engagement, though it does not name the closely related sibling content_performance_list, leaving some overlap unresolved.

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?

The 90-day window bound and the 'counts are not verified conversions' caveat imply when this data is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as content_performance_list or customer_outcome_apply. Usage must be inferred from the constraints rather than stated.

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