Device breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that all four dimensions arrive in one call, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or how the bot filter interacts with agentType beyond what the schema already states.

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, front-loaded with the resource and dimensions, and the payoff ('one call returns all four') lands before the qualifier. Slightly dense in the enumeration, but no sentence is filler.

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 read-only analytics call with no output schema but full param documentation, the description covers the what, the return shape (four dimensions at once), and an implied use case. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the schema by decoding what agentType, agentName, deviceType and deviceName actually mean with concrete example values, which the raw enum-less parameters do not convey on their own.

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-and-resource outcome ('how a show is consumed') and enumerates the four dimensions it returns (agentType, agentName, deviceType, deviceName), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also implicitly separates itself from single-dimension siblings by noting it returns all four 'rather than a single ranked list.'

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 line 'which is what you want for a picture of the audience rather than a single ranked list' gives a clear situational cue and implicitly contrasts with the narrower siblings (op3_app_share, op3_geography). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative to use instead, so it never reaches when/when-not territory.

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