Top campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ranking/ordering behavior ('leaderboard', 'ordered by performance'), which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it claims ranking 'across a period' while the schema exposes no period or date parameter, leaving the actual scoping mechanism unexplained.

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?

Four short labeled blocks, each doing one job, with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler sentences; every line earns its place.

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?

For a read-only ranking tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives and the return shape ('campaigns ordered by performance'). Minor gaps remain: the undefined ranking metric, the unexplained 'period', and the undocumented limit parameter.

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 single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so its meaning (how many campaigns are returned, defaults, maximum) is undocumented in both places. A 1-param, low-coverage schema required the description to compensate and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rank campaigns by performance') plus scope ('across a period'), and explicitly contrasts itself with two named siblings via the 'Not for' line. An agent can tell this leaderboard apart from plunk_list_campaigns and plunk_get_campaign_stats without opening any schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('The user asks what worked best, or you need the strongest performers without fetching every campaign') and explicit when-not-to-use naming the two alternative tools. Routing guidance is unambiguous.

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