get_ecommerce_product_activity

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: reliance on e-commerce integration (returns empty result if not connected) and 404 error for invalid campaign_id. This provides useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (prerequisites, Args, Returns) and uses concise language. It avoids unnecessary words but could be slightly tighter; the Args list could be more compact. Still efficient and front-loaded.

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 complexity, having an output schema (described in Returns) and a straightforward purpose, the description covers all needed context: prerequisites, error handling, pagination, and output format. It is complete for an agent to decide to use it.

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 0%, so description must compensate. The Args section provides meaningful details for campaign_id (format), count (range 1-1000, default 20), and offset (pagination). The 'account' parameter is not mentioned, but it's optional and default null. Overall, the description adds significant semantic value.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Retrieve e-commerce product activity for a campaign showing revenue per product.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_store_product (which handles store product details) and get_campaign_report (broader campaign stats).

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?

Description specifies prerequisites: 'Requires an active e-commerce integration; returns total_items: 0 if none is connected. Use list_ecommerce_stores to verify status. Only works for sent campaigns.' It also mentions error behavior for invalid campaign_id. It provides clear context for when to use, but could be more explicit about when not to use or suggest alternatives like get_campaign_report.

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