analytics

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: hosted accounts receive a dashboard link and snapshot card, the link should be relayed, and some clients show the image only to the model. It also documents default behavior for empty parameters without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary and then an organized Args block. The hosted-account image nuance is a valuable caveat that earns its place. It is slightly longer than strictly needed but contains 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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what each mode returns, export formats, parameter defaults, and the hosted-account rendering caveat. It omits error handling and permission notes, but for a read-only analytics tool the provided context is sufficient for an agent to call 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It documents all four parameters: action values, campaign_id defaulting to active, campaign_ids for compare mode, and format choices for export. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 identifies the tool as campaign analytics with reports, comparisons, and exports, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like campaign or show_status. It lacks a direct action verb, but the resource and available modes are specific enough to avoid tautology.

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 Args section gives mode-specific usage context: report, compare, and export, along with defaults for empty campaign_id and campaign_ids. However, it never explicitly states when not to use this tool or names alternatives among the large sibling set, leaving some routing to inference.

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