query_account_journey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool queries BigQuery, returns chronological touchpoints with attribution weights, and requires an environment variable. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, data freshness, or read-only nature explicitly. More detail would be beneficial.

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 concise (~60 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the information could be better structured (e.g., separated into prerequisites and output details).

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains the return type (multi-touch attribution path with touchpoints and weights) and the requirement for BigQuery mode. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, performance, or maximum results.

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 only 33% (only account_domain has a description). The tool description adds no additional parameter details. Two parameters (lookback_days, conversion_type) are left without any explanation in the description, relying solely on the schema's limited descriptions.

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's purpose: querying BigQuery to return the full multi-touch attribution path for a specific account domain. It specifies the verb 'query', the resource 'attribution path', and the scope 'for a specific company account domain'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle summaries or different metrics.

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 explicitly notes that the tool is essential for B2B account-based attribution and surfaces cross-platform journeys missed by platform-level reports. It also warns that BigQuery mode must be enabled (BIGQUERY_PROJECT_ID env var). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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