get_brand_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool is a stub, which is a critical behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but the stub disclosure is sufficient given the context.

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 very concise: two sentences front-load the purpose and the stub nature. Every word contributes value 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's stub nature, the description is adequate for an introspection scenario. However, for a real tool, it would be incomplete as it does not describe return values or the meaning of the funnel/benchmarks. The nested filters object and 7 parameters are not elaborated beyond the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters.

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 'Brand Metrics funnel and peer benchmarks' and labels it as an Ads/read tool, which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. The name and description together distinguish it from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance. However, it could be more explicit about the exact data returned.

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 explicitly notes that this is a 'Hosted endpoint only; this local stdio server is an introspection stub,' which clearly tells the agent that the tool cannot be invoked locally and is only for introspection. This provides clear context for when not to use it, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives.

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