kickbacks_ads_history

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it requires an API key, supports pagination, and lists return fields (ad, campaign, surface, event type, revenue, clicked). This is good, though it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or mention error handling.

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?

Two concise sentences. First explains purpose, second adds surface details, pagination, and API key requirement. No unnecessary 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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), description covers purpose, returned fields, pagination, and API key requirement. No gaps for effective use.

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 descriptions for limit and offset. The description only adds that pagination is supported, which is redundant with schema. No additional parameter meaning beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets recent ad impression and click history, with specific verb and resource. It lists fields returned (ad, campaign, surface, event type, revenue, clicked), distinguishing it from siblings like kickbacks_balance or kickbacks_earnings.

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?

Description mentions pagination and required API key, implying usage context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but siblings are clearly distinct (balance, config, etc.), so usage is contextually clear.

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