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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the UTM matching mechanism, that results are per-campaign, and the exact return fields. There is no contradiction between the description and 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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: purpose and mechanism, return fields, and usage context. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states the return fields, the UTM-based matching behavior, the use case, and an ordering hint relative to nevent_list_paid_campaigns. Minor gaps like field types or edge cases (e.g., campaigns without UTM matches) are not critical given the tool's low complexity.

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 100%, with the provider parameter fully documented via enum values (meta|google|tiktok) and a clear description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail, but the schema already carries the full meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('most business-focused view of paid ads'), and explains the mechanism: linking campaigns to ticket sales and revenue via UTM matching. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nevent_get_paid_campaign_insights by emphasizing business metrics (ticketsSold, revenue, budget) rather than raw ad-platform metrics.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks about ROI, conversion, or revenue from paid ads' and instructs to use it 'after nevent_list_paid_campaigns to cross-reference campaign IDs.' It provides clear contextual triggers and even an ordering rule, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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