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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the request limit (up to 100), the return fields (success, processed, failed, total_earnings, errors), and the offline sync scenario, implying partial failures and earnings crediting. This goes beyond a minimal description, though it could mention idempotency or authentication details.

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?

The description is well-structured with separate sections for purpose, usage, returns, and an example. It is somewhat long but every section adds value, and the example is useful for illustrating the expected input. No superfluous content is present.

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?

The tool has a single parameter with a nested object structure, no output schema, and no annotations. The description compensates by detailing the return values and providing an example. It adequately covers the essential usage context, but could elaborate on error handling or idempotency for full completeness.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all properties, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds an example illustrating the array structure, but it does not explain parameter meanings beyond what the schema offers. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool records multiple impressions in a single request with a limit of 100. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'record_impression' tool which likely handles one at a time. The verb 'record' and resource 'impressions' are specific and unambiguous.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly provides three use cases: bulk reporting, efficient batch processing, and offline sync. This gives clear context on when to invoke this tool. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the context naturally differentiates it from single-record operations.

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