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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: the summary format returns a strongest-campaign verdict and a written rollup, and the tool can produce daily breakdowns. It also tells the agent to stop calling more analytics tools once the comparison is returned. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter triggers, stop condition, and sibling routing are all included without fluff. The most important scope information is front-loaded. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

Combined with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the key selection logic, parameter triggers, alternative routing, and the stop condition. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on dateRange/default behavior, but the schema provides structure and the description mentions 30-day rollups contextually.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains when to set granularity=DAILY and format=summary, which addresses two enum parameters. However, it does not explain dateRange semantics, default values, or what format=json implies beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: retrieving artist-level performance across all campaigns. It distinguishes itself from the sibling dynamoi_get_campaign, which is for one campaign's metrics. The scope ('across all campaigns') and resource ('artist analytics') are clearly identified.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('artist-level performance across all campaigns') and when to use the alternative ('For one campaign's metrics, use dynamoi_get_campaign'). It also gives concrete parameter instructions for granularity=DAILY and format=summary, plus a stop-and-answer rule after the strongest-campaign comparison is returned.

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