get_attribution_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions it is a read tool (implied by '[Ads / read]') and a stub locally, but fails to detail rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens upon invocation (e.g., returns mock data).

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and deployment limitation. While brief, it contains essential information without 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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, error handling, or the nature of 'lightweight filters', leaving the agent with significant gaps for correct usage.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as format or constraints.

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 is a read tool for 'Off-Amazon Amazon Attribution performance', distinguishing it from other performance tools like get_campaign_performance. The '[Ads / read]' prefix and specific naming make the purpose unambiguous.

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 notes it is 'hosted endpoint only' and a 'local stdio server is an introspection stub', implying it should not be used locally. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over other performance tools, nor does it list alternatives.

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