Get Attribution Report

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent traits. The description adds value by describing the content of the report (outcome counts, etc.), which is consistent with annotations. No contradictions or missing behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and output, the second adds a usage warning and sibling tool reference. No extraneous words, information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return content (outcomes, values, confidence, agents). Parameters are fully explained in schema. The sibling tool for alternative use is named. The description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 100%, with each parameter already well-documented (agent_id: optional filter; days: default 30; model: enum with defaults). The description does not add additional parameter-level context, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 showing which agent actions led to business outcomes, listing specific outputs (outcome counts, total values, confidence scores, top agents). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool generate_roi_audit, ensuring no confusion.

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 NOT to use this tool ('Do NOT use for board-level reporting') and provides a direct alternative ('use generate_roi_audit for formal audit reports'). This gives clear guidance to the agent on tool selection.

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