Rank the top links

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real operational context: UTC day boundaries, a hard 92-day maximum window, and a documented 30-day default. It also discloses the shape of the result (per-link share of total), which is not captured anywhere in the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, no redundancy. The read-only/safety statement comes first, then what it ranks and returns, then the time-window constraints — the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so adequately ('share of the total'). Parameter defaults and the window cap are covered. Only minor gaps remain, such as how ties or links with zero activity are handled.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds information the schema does not: the 92-day maximum span between from and to, and the default window of the last 30 days. The 'by' semantics are reinforced by the ranking phrasing in the description.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('top links over a date range, ranked by taps, app opens, installs or conversions') and states what is returned ('each link's share of the total'). That is enough to separate it from generic analytics siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_analytics or compare_analytics, which are the nearest alternatives.

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?

It provides a concrete when-to-use cue in the quoted example 'which links brought the most installs this month', which maps cleanly onto the 'by' enum. It stops short of saying when not to use it or pointing to a sibling when the agent wants aggregate totals instead of per-link ranking.

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