ads_interest_research_stats_build

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real weight by disclosing that this is analytics-only and sends no messages, which is the key safety fact. It omits other behavioral traits an agent needs: whether the snapshot is persisted/overwritten, the window semantics, and whether repeated calls are idempotent.

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 sentences, no waste, with the resource and its measured dimensions front-loaded and the safety caveat second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

The description effectively serves as the missing output summary by listing post volume, unique authors, contacts, relevance and tags, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It falls short only on the input side, where three parameters with defaults and bounds go unexplained.

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 all three parameters, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at time-windowing via "time-window" and says nothing about the range/bounds of `days`, what `channel` values are valid (mastodon default, max 80 chars), or what `project_id` scopes.

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?

States a specific verb ("Build") and a specific resource ("a local time-window snapshot of research demand") and enumerates the metrics it captures. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling ads_interest_research_stats_list, leaving the build-vs-read distinction to be inferred from the names.

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?

"This is analytics only and never contacts anyone" usefully rules out the outreach/contact siblings, but it never states the positive trigger (e.g. call this before ads_interest_research_stats_list, or after ingesting posts) nor names the alternative for retrieving existing snapshots.

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