ops_get_tracking_trend

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

No annotations are provided; the description does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, data limits, or side effects. It only mentions parameter requirements without broader behavioral context.

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-loading the action and key constraints. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from more detail without being verbose.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the funnel concept, expected response, or how parameters like campaign/ source affect results. Basic required parameters are noted but overall context is lacking.

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%. The description adds meaning for created_from and created_to (RFC3339 format) but does not explain the other four parameters (source, link_id, campaign, grain) or map them to the tool's behavior. Grain's enum values are not elaborated.

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 queries campaign tracking funnel trends, specifying temporal granularity (hour/day). It distinguishes from siblings like ops_get_tracking_breakdown indirectly by named operation, but not explicitly.

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 required parameters (created_from, created_to) and their format (RFC3339), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ops_get_tracking_breakdown or ops_get_tracking_summary, nor when not to use it.

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