mkt_scorecard

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description has to carry the full burden. It usefully asserts 只读 (read-only) and warns that the ratios are descriptive figures rather than causal channel-effectiveness claims — a genuinely valuable guard against misreading results. It says nothing, however, about permissions, time-window defaults, pagination, or what an empty result looks like.

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?

A single compact sentence with the read-only nature front-loaded and the metric scope stated before the interpretation caveat. Nothing is redundant, though the terseness borders on under-specification given two undocumented parameters.

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, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only documentation available — yet it never explains the shape of the returned counts, the default time window when `since` is omitted, or how `campaign` filters. For an aggregation tool of this complexity that is a meaningful shortfall.

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 0% for both `since` and `campaign`, and the description never mentions either. It gives no hint that `since` bounds the reporting window or that `campaign` narrows the aggregation, so an agent must guess at accepted formats (ISO date? epoch?) and scoping semantics.

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 names a specific resource (运营记分卡, operational scorecard) and enumerates its contents: counts of execution-receipt outcomes (success/unknown/failure) and business-result counts. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from a generic status or search tool, but it never names a sibling such as mkt_metric_measure, mkt_status, mkt_progress, or mkt_result, of which several plausible-looking alternatives exist in the list.

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?

There is no when-to-use instruction, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The sentence about ratios being descriptive rather than a measure of channel effect is an interpretive caveat, not guidance on selecting this tool over mkt_metric_measure or mkt_progress, so the agent must infer positioning from the name.

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