Attribution lookback window

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP method and path, with no details on permissions, return value shape, or other behavioral traits beyond the 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 minimal and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant sentences. For a zero-parameter read tool, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter getter whose annotations cover safety, and no output schema exists. However, the description does not state what the settings contain, such as the lookback duration or units returned, leaving return semantics implicit.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema description gap.

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 names a specific resource, the attribution lookback window, and indicates retrieval via the GET endpoint. It is distinguishable from the sibling tracking_setSettings, though it does not explicitly contrast the two or state the verb in prose.

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 getter versus tracking_setSettings or other tracking tools. The read-only nature is implied, but there are no explicit usage conditions or alternatives.

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