get_daily_trends

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the return shape (time-series data), but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or auth beyond what the schema implies.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core purpose before the analytic use cases. No filler, though the trailing purpose list is slightly redundant.

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?

For a read-only reporting tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate; it hints at the returned time-series nature. With no output schema, it could still say more about the structure of the trend series, but nothing critical to calling it is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including formats and defaults. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or units beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource combination ('Retrieves daily performance trends') and pins the granularity to daily time-series data. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling report tools (get_campaign_performance, get_analytics) it should be chosen over.

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 is only implied via the stated goals (visualizing patterns, spotting anomalies, day-of-week effects). There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_campaign_performance or compare_performance, nor any stated exclusions.

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