mureo_analytics_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses read-only behavior ('never mutates the ad account'), return statuses (status=ok | no_credentials | data_unavailable), the meaning of an empty signals list, and the fact that certain parameters are ignored for non-applicable capabilities, including the multi-week window rationale.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the main function, then flows logically into usage prerequisites, capability-specific details, parameter applicability, and safety/return behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and a complex multi-capability tool, the description covers all essential context: return payload structure, error statuses, parameter scoping, and prerequisite sequencing. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantics beyond the schema: it explains that window_days applies only to detect_anomalies and scope only to diagnose_performance, and that platform must match the value from mureo_analytics_modules_list. This clarifies conditional parameter behavior not obvious from the schema alone.

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?

Clearly states it runs one capability of the analytics module and returns a structured result. The description enumerates the exact capabilities, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mureo_analytics_modules_list and analysis_* tools that might check or diagnose separately.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use after mureo_analytics_modules_list confirms the platform advertises the capability. It also clarifies which parameters apply to which capabilities, guiding the correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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