Get Workspace Stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full load; it does disclose the default time window and the accepted date format, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, rate limits, or aggregation semantics (e.g., whether figures are summed or averaged across accounts), leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded with the essentials (scope, then date format and default). The third sentence about reporting percentages beside absolutes is a philosophical aside about presentation rather than tool behavior, and it occupies roughly half the description without telling the agent how to call the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the two parameters are covered by the date-format and default notes. What's missing is any statement of read-only nature or aggregation behavior, which matters given the absence of annotations for a stats tool spanning all accounts and campaigns.

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% and the schema only shows date_from/date_to as nullable strings with null defaults, so the description does the compensating work: 'Dates are ISO, YYYY-MM-DD' and 'Omit both for the last 30 days' give both format and default semantics. This is a solid improvement over the bare schema, though it omits the format of any complete-date response and ordering constraints.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('Get figures') and an explicit scope ('across every account and campaign, for a date range'), which implicitly separates it from the single-campaign sibling get_campaign_stats. It never names a sibling outright, so the differentiation relies on the reader inferring 'all accounts/campaigns' vs. per-entity tools like get_campaign_stats or get_account_budget.

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?

Usage is only implied through scope: the workspace-wide aggregation suggests when to prefer this over a per-campaign stat tool, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given. The default-window note ('Omit both for the last 30 days') is parameter behavior, not selection guidance.

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