direct.hf.report_performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds almost nothing: it doesn't disclose what the preset aggregates, required auth/account resolution, rate limits, or default date behavior. Calling it 'human-friendly' conveys no actionable behavioral trait.

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?

It is a single short sentence, which is efficient, but 'Human-friendly:' is filler and the size reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy. The one informative clause (preset day/week/month) is front-loaded in the parenthetical.

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 7-parameter reporting tool with low schema coverage, the description is far too thin; it never explains what the report returns or how the preset differs from the sibling report tools. Although an output schema exists (so return-value description is not strictly required), the selection and input guidance needed to invoke this correctly across 7 params is missing.

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 only 29% (only account_id and direct_client_login are documented in the schema), so the description is expected to compensate but does not. It mentions granularity implicitly via 'day/week/month' but says nothing about date_to/date_from formats, campaign_id/campaign_name filtering, or how account_id defaults resolve. Six of seven parameters carry no explanatory support.

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 verb+resource (performance report) scoped as a Direct preset with day/week/month granularity, so the basic purpose is inferable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many sibling report tools (direct.hf.report_keywords, report_ads, report_adgroups, report_search_phrases, pressure_report, direct.report), leaving the agent to guess which report to pick. The 'Human-friendly:' prefix adds framing but no differentiating substance.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the numerous report siblings. The '(day/week/month)' hint implies a preset bucket but does not say when this preset should be chosen over raw direct.report or the other report_* variants. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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