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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation context: an 'Owner only' permission requirement and the fact that the data feeds lead-cost analytics. It does not disclose rate limits or duplicate-handling behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and purpose, then the parameter semantics, then the permission constraint — good ordering. The dimension-mapping sentence is dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the trickiest parameter semantics, and permissions. It still leaves open whether repeated calls accumulate spend, whether the period is inclusive, and what happens on duplicate entries — gaps for a non-idempotent write.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description carries real burden and partially meets it by explaining the key dimension/value mapping ('dimension says what value names') with concrete examples for each enum. But the other required parameters (amount, period_from, period_to, label, value bounds) get no semantic help, leaving the compensation incomplete.

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+resource ('Record how much was spent on an ad or campaign over a period') and even gives the downstream purpose (analytics cost of a lead). It implicitly separates itself from the read-side sibling dosai_list_ad_spend via the verb 'Record', though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

It conveys intent ('so analytics can show the cost of a lead') and a real precondition ('Owner only'), which tells the agent who may call it. However, it never states when to choose this over dosai_list_ad_spend or any other tool, and gives no when-not guidance.

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