get_revenue_attribution

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds meaningful behavior: data comes from tracked conversions and includes specific metrics (revenue per campaign/contact, AOV). It does not detail return format or pagination, but the description adds enough beyond annotations to be transparent about scope.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key output dimensions without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 lists the main output elements and data source, providing reasonable clarity for a 2-parameter read-only tool. It could mention default time range (already in schema) or whether results are aggregated vs. list-level, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%—both `period` and `campaign_id` are described with enums and meanings. The description does not add additional parameter-level details, so baseline 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?

The description clearly identifies a specific function: attributing ecommerce revenue to email, with explicit outputs (revenue per campaign, per contact, AOV). The verb 'Attribute' is slightly unusual for a retrieval tool, but the intent is unambiguous and it differentiates from broader analytics tools like get_analytics.

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 context is implied—this tool is for viewing revenue attribution from email campaigns—but there is no explicit 'when to use' vs. alternatives, nor any exclusionary guidance relative to siblings like get_analytics or generate_report. The description relies on the agent inferring its purpose from the name and context signals.

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