get_daily_trends

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns time-series data, which is a basic behavioral trait, but it does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core functionality.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds context about use cases. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-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?

Given the tool has six parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It explains the use cases but omits details about output format, pagination, or how parameters like metrics and entityLevel affect the results. The schema covers parameter descriptions, so the description only needs to add contextual value, which it does partially, but more could be said about the response structure.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions the general purpose of returning time-series data. Since the schema fully covers parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description provides no extra value for 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 clearly states the tool retrieves daily performance trends over a specified period and returns time-series data. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'daily performance trends', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_campaign_performance that may focus on aggregate or campaign-level data. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies usage for visualizing patterns, identifying anomalies, and understanding day-of-week effects, providing clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as compare_performance or get_campaign_performance, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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