Show Account Embed Locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond annotations: the required permission ('Read detailed stats'), delegated-token behavior, and the 2-year maximum date span. It omits pagination or rate-limit behavior, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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 front-loaded: purpose and return are stated first, followed by the date-range constraint, then permissions. It is generally tight, though the delegated-token paragraph is boilerplate that goes beyond what an agent likely needs for tool selection, slightly diluting conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does describe the return as a ranked list of domains, and it covers the key constraint and authorization requirements. It stops short of detailing per-domain response fields or pagination behavior, leaving minor gaps for an analytics-listing endpoint.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds a valuable cross-parameter constraint not present in the schema: the range between start_date and end_date must not exceed 2 years. It adds no further meaning for sort_by, sort_direction, account, or per_page, so it does not reach 5.

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 ('Retrieve embed location analytics for the entire account') and clarifies the return ('list of domains where the account's media are embedded, ranked by the chosen metric'). The phrase 'entire account' distinguishes it from the sibling get_media_embed_locations, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 scope ('entire account') implicitly tells when to use this instead of a media-specific embed-location tool, and the 2-year date-range restriction is a concrete usage constraint. However, no alternative tool is named explicitly and there is no 'do not use when' statement, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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