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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: result ordering ('newest first') and the default scope when campaign is omitted. It still says nothing about the time window covered or result volume/limits.

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 sentences, no filler, with the returned content front-loaded before the parameter behavior. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return grain, ordering, and the one undocumented default. The notable remaining gap is the time period the conversions and traffic cover, since no date parameter exists to imply it.

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 50%, and the description goes directly at the undocumented parameter: 'Omit campaign for all' explains what a missing campaign value does, which the schema does not. The domain parameter is already well described in the schema, so the description adds value exactly where it is needed.

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 resource (traffic and same-day conversions per tracked campaign link) rather than a vague 'get data'. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_timeseries or get_overview, which also report traffic.

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 only guidance is 'Omit campaign for all,' which describes a parameter default rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives. With 15 siblings, no condition for selecting get_campaign_results versus get_timeseries or top_sources is given.

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