Attribute Task to Outcome

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that it 'creates a mapping', confirming it's a write. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., duplicate handling, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible). Satisfactory with some gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by exclusion. No fluff. Every word earns its place. Excellent efficiency.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use, and when not to. It lacks return value details but that is acceptable given the action-oriented nature. Minor gaps in behavioral details, but overall sufficient for correct agent invocation.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It provides no additional explanation beyond schema, which is adequate but not extra help for the agent. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool links agent tasks to business outcomes for ROI tracking. It uses specific verb 'Link' and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools for reading attribution data. Unambiguous and well-framed.

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 states when to use (for creating mappings) and when not to use ('Do NOT use for reading attribution data') with alternative tools named ('get_attribution_report' or 'get_task_roi'). Provides perfect guidance for an agent to decide.

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