capture_click_id_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Return' does imply a non-mutating, read-only operation. However, it does not disclose the shape of the returned schema, whether the allowlist includes deprecated or lifecycle-stage values, or any limitations. It is not misleading, but minimal.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 parameterless informational tool, the description names what the tool returns, but with no output schema present it would benefit from a bit more context about the schema contents or typical use cases. It is adequate for a simple lookup tool but leaves the agent to guess what 'lifecycle schema' includes.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete and the description need not explain param semantics. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and no further parameter documentation is required.

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 states a specific action ('Return') and a concrete resource ('canonical click ID allowlist and lifecycle schema'), making it clear this is a read-only metadata tool rather than a generator or validator. It is distinguishable from siblings like generate_nextjs_integration and validate_attribution_pipeline by its informational intent, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 gives no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus the many sibling tools such as validate_attribution_pipeline, diagnose_missing_click_ids, or generate_nextjs_integration. An agent must infer that fetching the canonical schema is a prerequisite or reference step, but the description does not state this.

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