Get campaign decisions (scale / cut / hold)

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

This is a high-scoring area because it provides critical agent instructions. Specifically, telling the AI to 'Report the `call` VERBATIM — do not recompute or override it; when it says not_enough_data, say so' dictates complex processing rules that metadata alone cannot convey.

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 highly efficient. It front-loads the main value proposition and immediately follows with the essential operational rules (verbatim reporting/handling missing data), resulting in zero wasted words.

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 that this is an automation tool, the description's behavioral transparency (how to report the call and handle edge cases) makes it fully complete for an agent seeking to utilize this specific feature.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema handles the technical details of parameters. The description provides valuable high-level context by stating these decisions are 'computed by the attribution engine,' which supports the data's origin without repeating schema details. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 purpose is exceptionally clear: to return AttriKit's profit decisions (scale/cut/hold call and confidence). This clearly distinguishes it from generic list or retrieve campaign tools in the sibling set.

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?

It explicitly states the intended use case ('This is the tool to drive budget automation'). While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the highly specialized function is clear enough to define its primary role relative to general campaign data retrieval.

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