get_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by specifying synchronous behavior, window limit, level restriction, and return format (aliases). No contradictions with annotations.

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 that front-load key constraints (window, level mixing) and mention output behavior. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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 the output schema exists, the description adequately covers return structure. It mentions constraints and aliases. However, it lacks error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., account permissions). Still, it's fairly complete for a tool with high schema coverage and annotations.

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%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema details, but it reinforces constraints like level mixing not allowed and field usage hints.

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 states it's a synchronous stats inquiry with constraints like window ≤92 days and no level mixing. It distinguishes from general stats tools but does not explicitly compare to siblings like 'get_campaign_performance' or 'get_performance_report'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The constraints imply usage for recent/small volume queries, but no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria. The lack of usage context makes it harder for an agent to choose this over similar tools.

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