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

Annotations already declare this read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: it returns aggregate totals over a date range and switches granularity when campaignId is supplied. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core operation and then add the only conditional that changes behavior. There is no filler and no redundant restating of schema fields or annotations.

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 an output schema present and read-only/non-destructive hints in the annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: date range, aggregation scope, and the single-campaign override. It is complete for a simple analytics getter, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby analytics siblings such as droptrack_get_campaign_analytics.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that supplying campaignId changes the result from company totals to a single campaign, and 'over a date range' clarifies the role of from and to.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get Grow/ads daily analytics') and then states the exact scope: company totals or a single campaign when campaignId is supplied. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like droptrack_get_label_ad_analytics, which target label-level data.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: for daily analytics over a date range, optionally scoped to one campaign via campaignId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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