op3_device_breakdown

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable output behavior: all four dimensions are returned in a single call, avoiding the need for multiple requests. There is no contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core concept and with the dimensions enumerated efficiently. The final sentence adds selection context and is not wasteful, though slightly promotional.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description does well to communicate that the call returns all four dimensions at once. However, it does not describe the result structure, ordering, or how the 'top' parameter applies per dimension, leaving some ambiguity for an agent with no output schema to rely on.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are already documented structurally. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline.

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 what the tool does: it explains how a show is consumed across four named OP3 dimensions and notes that one call returns all four. It is specific about the resource and the shape of the result, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool it should be distinguished from.

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?

It gives a useful selection cue: 'One call returns all four, which is what you want for a picture of the audience rather than a single ranked list.' This implies when to use it, but it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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