Get attribution rollup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the response contents (evidence-class breakdown, MER, revenue) and surfacing 'data freshness' as a returned signal, which matters for a metrics rollup. It does not mention rate limits or the default window behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the payload enumerated compactly. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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's enumeration of returned metrics is the right thing to include and it does so. Minor gaps remain: 'MER' is unexplained and the default reporting window (when period is omitted) is deferred entirely to the schema.

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% and every parameter is documented there, including the period/from-to 400 conflict and the enum values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb ('Return') plus a precisely scoped resource ('account-level attribution overview'), followed by an enumeration of the payload (evidence-class installs, MER, revenue, data freshness). The 'account-level' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling lookup_customer_attribution, which is per-customer.

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: 'account-level' suggests this is the rollup view rather than a per-customer lookup, but the description never names an alternative or states when to prefer this over lookup_customer_attribution. It also says nothing about choosing between period and from/to, leaving the schema's mutual-exclusion note to carry that.

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