run_tracking_diagnostic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool runs a diagnostic and returns results, but does not indicate whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. The absence of side-effect disclosure is a significant gap.

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 (about 60 words) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence is informative, with no redundant content. The Args section is appropriately separated.

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?

The description provides a high-level summary of the return type but lacks detailed structure or examples. Given no output schema, this is adequate for a diagnostic tool, but more specifics on the classification schema would enhance completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining 'account_id' (with example) and 'archetype' (for requirement matching). However, it does not enumerate valid archetype values or clarify how they affect the diagnostic, leaving ambiguity.

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 tool performs a comprehensive tracking diagnostic for an ad account, listing specific checks (pixels, event coverage, parameters, Meta flags) and output (health classification with issues and suggestions). This distinguishes it from sibling 'diagnose_pixel_on_site' which likely focuses on a single pixel.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'diagnose_pixel_on_site'. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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