get_display_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' with no details about return values, required permissions, side effects, or report generation behavior. This is essentially a placeholder that reveals nothing beyond the tool name.

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 extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a fragment that fails to convey anything about the report's purpose, parameters, or behavior, so the text does not earn its place as a useful tool description.

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?

The description is drastically incomplete given the tool's context. It has optional parameters, no output schema, and many sibling forecast/report tools, yet it offers no information about the report's contents, how the forecast is generated, or any usage context. The agent cannot correctly select or invoke this tool based on this description.

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% for the two parameters ('Date preset' and 'Timezone'), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no extra meaning or usage nuance for these parameters, landing at the baseline of 3 for high 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 description 'Get display forecast report' includes a verb ('Get') and a resource ('display forecast report'), but it does not clearly define what a display forecast is or how it differs from sibling tools like get_display_channel_forecast, get_placement_forecast, or get_vast_forecast. It is a vague purpose with no scope differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusionary conditions, leaving the agent without any decision support for tool selection.

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