Get Attribution Report

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds transparency about the 'model' parameter being informational only due to backend behavior, and references the canonical enum source. This disclosure is valuable beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, include the warning about alternative tool use, and add necessary behavioral notes. No superfluous words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description hints at return structure (outcome counts, values, etc.). With zero required parameters and all schema descriptions covered, the contextual information is sufficient for most usage scenarios. Could mention pagination or limits, but not essential.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already describes all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the 'model' parameter's actual effect (informational only) and providing context about the enum source. The baseline is 3, and this added insight merits a 4.

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 retrieves an attribution report linking agent actions to business outcomes, listing specific contents (outcome counts, values, confidence scores, top agents). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'generate_roi_audit' by explicitly excluding its use for board-level reporting.

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 guidance on when not to use this tool ('Do NOT use for board-level reporting') and directs to an alternative ('use generate_roi_audit'). It lacks an explicit 'when to use' statement but the context of attribution analysis is clear.

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