get_connects_economics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns economic metrics but does not explicitly declare the operation type (read-only), mention side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. The behavior is partially transparent through the listed outputs.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the key outputs. It is concise with no redundancy, though it could benefit from slight structural separation for readability.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on return format, required parameters (none required), and how the filters affect results. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'segment' which aligns with the 'dimension' parameter but does not elaborate on usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 providing 'connects economics' metrics like overall connects-per-win, segmented ROI data, and boosted-vs-not comparison, using a specific verb (implied 'get') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_conversion_funnel or get_forecast by the focus on connects economics.

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 description implies usage by listing the output metrics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any contextual guidance. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is given.

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