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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the content (metrics) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

The description is concise, with a clear title line and a structured argument list. However, the Chinese and English versions are redundant, and the overall length could be slightly reduced without losing clarity.

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?

Despite the parameter explanations, the description lacks details about the output format, pagination behavior, and any limits or error conditions. With no output schema, this leaves the agent without crucial information for handling the response.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (all parameter titles are generic). The tool description compensates by explaining each parameter (advertiser_id, start_date, end_date, page, page_size) with formats and defaults, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 the tool is for Qianchuan ecommerce ad reports, listing specific metrics (impressions, clicks, cost, conversions, GMV, ROI). The name and description distinguish it from sibling report tools (e.g., get_campaign_report, get_ad_detail_report) by specifying the 'Qianchuan' platform.

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?

The description provides the domain (Qianchuan ecommerce ads) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like other report tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name.

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

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

No annotations provided; description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or disclose any auth requirements or rate limits. Only states it gets a report, which is minimally informative.

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?

Concise with a clear title (bilingual) and explanation followed by parameter list. No wasted words, but the Chinese title and English description could be combined slightly more efficiently.

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?

Covers parameters and basic purpose, but lacks details on return format, pagination behavior beyond defaults, and does not differentiate from similar report tools. Given no output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

Description provides an Args section with format hints (YYYY-MM-DD for dates) and defaults (page=1, page_size=20, max 100), adding significant value beyond the schema which has no descriptions. Schema coverage 0% means description fully compensates.

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?

Clearly states it gets a performance report for Star influencer marketing campaigns, specifying metrics included (reach, engagement, conversions, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling report tools like get_campaign_report or get_creative_report by explicitly mentioning 'Star'.

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?

Implied by name and description that this is for Star campaign reports, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus other report tools or when not to use it. Missing context on prerequisites or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns paginated results beyond parameter defaults. The read-only nature is assumed but not confirmed.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose in both Chinese and English. The Args section is well-structured. The redundant Chinese line slightly reduces efficiency but does not detract significantly.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return structure (e.g., list of material objects, pagination metadata). It does not, leaving the agent to infer the response format.

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 description provides clear, human-readable explanations for all four parameters (advertiser_id, page, page_size, material_type), adding value beyond the bare schema. It includes defaults, max values, and example filter values.

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 the tool lists materials in the creative library under an advertiser account, with an optional filter by material type. This specific verb-resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools like list_ads or list_campaigns.

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?

The description implies usage for listing creative materials but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks 'when-not' guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a listing operation (read-only) and mentions pagination parameters, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or any side effects. The description is minimal beyond the parameter list.

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 concise with a two-line title and a clear parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and uses a structured Args section. However, it could be slightly more streamlined by removing the redundant Chinese title.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains input well but does not describe the return format, pagination metadata, or possible errors. For a list operation, typical completeness would include what the response contains. It partially covers pagination but lacks output context.

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 0%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for parameters. The description compensates by explaining all four parameters (advertiser_id, status, page, page_size) with their purpose, defaults, and constraints (e.g., maximum page_size of 100). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'list' and resource 'star tasks', and specifies they are influencer marketing tasks under an advertiser account. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ad_detail or get_reports, which have different purposes.

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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions optional filtering by status and lists pagination parameters, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context. Sibling tools include many report and detail tools, but no direct alternative for listing star tasks, so some implicit guidance exists but is insufficient.

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