attribute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses authentication requirements (BYOK) and the possible sync/async response modes (200 sync or 202 async jobId). However, it omits side effects, job lifecycle behavior, or what the returned data contains, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase earns its place. It conveys the core action, auth precondition, and async behavior without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is minimal but covers the essential entry point: what it does, a key prerequisite, and the two possible response modes. It lacks context on how to retrieve the async result (e.g., via get_attribution_job), what 'active seed pairs' means operationally, and any dependency on environment variables beyond the schema, leaving gaps for a complex tool.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the BYOK parameter relationship ('ai_gateway_url + anthropic_api_key or cf_aig_token'), which is not fully explicit in the schema. It does not explain account_filter, randomization_seed, or skip_triage beyond their schema descriptions, so the added semantic value is modest.

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 action ('Run attribution') and the resource ('active seed pairs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_attribution_job by signaling that this tool initiates attribution rather than retrieves an existing job. However, 'active seed pairs' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be more explicit.

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 mentions a key precondition (BYOK on public host) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_attribution_job or list_runs. It does not exclude any use cases or state when not to use it, so usage context is only implied.

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