mkt_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — that the tool is read-only and that results are counts grouped by three dimensions — but it omits scope (what 'global' covers, any time window or workspace boundary) and says nothing about the shape or size of the returned aggregate.

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 compact clauses with no filler, and the core operation is stated first. The telegraphic phrasing borders on under-specification rather than wordiness, so it earns high marks on economy but not the top score for readability.

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 zero-parameter, read-only aggregation tool with no output schema, the description should pin down the scope of the aggregation and roughly what the response contains. It names the grouping dimensions, which partially substitutes for the missing output schema, but leaves the ledger's scope and any filtering context unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the input schema is trivially complete. This meets the baseline for a no-argument tool without needing additional description support.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource: aggregate the global ledger, counted by channel/campaign/result. That is specific enough for an agent to know the operation, but it does not distinguish this from near-neighbours such as mkt_ledger_query, mkt_scorecard or mkt_progress, so the sibling boundary is left implicit.

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?

'只读' signals a safe read operation but gives no when-to-use guidance: no indication of when to prefer this aggregation over mkt_ledger_query or mkt_scorecard, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'aggregate'.

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