get_share_of_voice

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

The description notes it is a read operation and a stub locally, but lacks disclosure of side effects, auth requirements, or behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). With no annotations, the description carries full burden but is insufficient.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose, second clarifies hosting limitation. Information is front-loaded and no unnecessary text. Could be slightly improved with clearer structure.

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?

No output schema exists, yet description does not explain return values or format. With 7 optional parameters and no usage examples, it leaves the agent guessing about typical invocation. Incomplete for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, which are already clear for each parameter.

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 retrieves 'Brand Metrics visibility and engagement signals' for ads, and the name 'get_share_of_voice' reinforces this. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'Ads / read'. However, it could be more specific about what signals are included.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_brand_health or other get_* tools. The mention of 'hosted endpoint only' and 'introspection stub' gives context but does not help with selection.

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