direct_product_attribution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the tool is an 'OPTIONAL READ' and that it is 'disabled with setup hints' by default, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or behavior when disabled beyond vague hints.

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 a single sentence, efficient and to the point. It packs setup requirements, a differentiator, and default state without excessive verbosity. However, it uses jargon and lacks formal structure, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 leaves significant gaps: no explanation of what the tool returns, what the 'days' parameter means, or practical usage examples. It also lacks details on how the setup hints behave or what exactly the SQL should output. For a tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'days' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention 'days' at all, so it provides no meaning beyond the bare schema definition. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 this tool performs an 'OPTIONAL READ' of the product database using custom SQL, distinguishing it from 'soft Metrika Conversions'. While the exact resource is somewhat vague ('your product DB'), the verb and scope are specific enough to differentiate it from sibling tools like reporting or campaign management.

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 explicit setup requirements and default state: 'Enable PRODUCT_ATTRIBUTION_ENABLED=true and set PRODUCT_ATTRIBUTION_SQL or use built-in only if you customized it.' It also notes this is 'not soft Metrika Conversions,' which helps exclude an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other attribution methods or sibling tools.

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