Preview ai tracking run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it explicitly guarantees no provider task is submitted despite the 'run' naming. It does not expand on what the preview actually returns or any rate limiting, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core purpose leads and the key non-side-effect guarantee follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, non-mutating preview tool with no output schema required, the description covers what gets reviewed (capability, credentials, budget, price) and the crucial safety guarantee. Combined with the annotations and fully documented schema, an agent has enough to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (project_id, prompt_ids, configurations, credential_connection_id) are already documented in the schema, including the fail-closed capability and price checks. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (review capability, credentials, budget, price) for a specific resource (an AI tracking run preview), which a verb+resource framing supports. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the paid-launch sibling ('before paid AI tracking') but never names create_ai_tracking_run, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'before paid AI tracking' gives a clear trigger context for when to call this, and 'Preview never submits a provider task' implies the preview/side-effect-free use case. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool (create_ai_tracking_run) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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