get_roas_evolution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does but doesn't cover important traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated data, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does and includes key metrics, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output information. For a tool that likely returns time-series data with multiple metrics, more guidance on interpretation or limitations would be helpful.

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 description mentions 'over time' which aligns with the 'date_range' and 'time_unit' parameters, and 'revenue, conversions, and clicks' which relate to the output but not directly to input parameters. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters well, so the description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get ROAS (Return on Ad Spend) evolution over time with revenue, conversions, and clicks.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('ROAS evolution'), and key metrics included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_conversions' or 'get_traffic_data' that might also provide related metrics.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_conversions' or 'get_funnel_data' that might overlap in functionality, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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