Diagnose Tracking (clicks → revenue)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the nature of the output (plain-English read, states PENDING/APPROVED/REVERSED/TEST_ACTION), mentions the date-window limit, and implies a read-only operation via 'diagnostic' and 'pulls'. It lacks an explicit statement that no data is modified, but the diagnostic framing strongly implies it.

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 four tightly written sentences. It leads with 'PRIMARY diagnostic', packs in the funnel logic, states the output, and mentions optional parameters and the range limit. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or padding.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, its output nature, the parameters' intent, and key constraints (max 45-day, optional narrowing). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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?

While the schema already covers all 5 parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of orderId ('trace a specific test OrderId'), groups campaign/SubId as narrowing options, and highlights the 45-day range constraint that applies to the date parameters. This goes above the baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'pulls' and names the resource ('click → action → revenue funnel'), explicitly stating it returns a plain-English diagnosis of why clicks may not produce revenue. It clearly distinguishes itself as 'PRIMARY diagnostic' against sibling tools like list_actions or find_action_by_order, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly identifies when to use this tool (as the PRIMARY diagnostic for a date window when clicks exist but revenue is missing) and provides constraints like the 45-day max range. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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