Статистика креативов

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context: it spends weekly API points, includes apiPointBalance in the response, enforces a 100-day period limit with inclusive boundaries, and clarifies that it narrows selection via creativeIds. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, output structure, metrics, constraints, and quota advice. It is front-loaded with the core function and logically organized, with no redundancy.

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 sufficiently details the return format (fields per creative, data per day, totalData), mentions metric names, currency, period rules, and the response quota field. It provides enough to call the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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?

While schema covers all 4 parameters (100% coverage), the description adds non-obvious semantics: creativeIds narrows the selection rather than enumerates, and the period includes both boundaries with a max duration. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states it provides statistics for the listed creatives of one campaign, returns a flat array with per-creative fields, and lists the metrics. It distinguishes itself from campaign_stats by explicitly noting it does not return campaign totals and that campaign_stats covers all creatives.

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 explicitly states when to use the alternative: 'to cover all creatives of a campaign, there is campaign_stats'. It also advises one broad period over many narrow calls due to API point spending, providing clear decision guidance.

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