get_warmup_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API requirement about array format, which is useful, but fails to describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format looks like, if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this 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?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The API requirement is relevant but could be integrated more smoothly. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, behavioral constraints, and how it differs from sibling tools. The API requirement note is helpful but doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds the API requirement about using an array even for single emails, which provides some additional context beyond the schema, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics like date range effects. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('warmup analytics for one or more accounts'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling analytics tools like 'get_campaign_analytics' or 'get_account_details', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 tool versus alternatives like 'get_campaign_analytics' or 'get_account_details', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., that accounts must be warmed up). The API requirement note is technical rather than usage guidance.

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