audience.hf.segment_perf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Best-effort' hints that results may be partial or unreliable and 'Human-friendly' implies a formatted rather than raw output, but auth requirements, rate limits, failure modes, and whether the two data sources are merged or fallback are all undisclosed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The 'Human-friendly:' prefix front-loads a marketing qualifier instead of the operation's defining behavior.

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 9-parameter tool with 3 required args, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is far from complete. It leaves the agent unable to distinguish this tool from the many sibling audience.hf.* reporting tools or to use its parameters correctly.

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 a moderate 67%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It gives no hint about grain, goal_ids, include_raw_refs, account_id/counter_id resolution, or the direct_client_login override, so the agent cannot compensate for the undocumented fields.

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 names a resource ('segment performance') and the underlying data sources ('Direct+Metrica'), which is more than a tautology. However, the qualifiers 'Human-friendly' and 'best-effort' are vague, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like audience.hf.get_segment_summary or audience.hf.segment_health.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of competing tools (segment_health, get_segment_summary, overlap_matrix). The agent is left to infer whether this is a summary, a time series, or a per-goal breakdown.

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