ad_manager_fb_get_campaign_reporting

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which convey the safety profile. However, the description adds no additional behavioral information such as what data is returned, whether pagination exists, or any request-specific constraints. It solely relies on annotations, providing no extra value beyond the structured fields.

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 extremely short but under-specified. A single phrase may be concise, but it does not front-load important information or structure details. It fails to earn its place by providing insufficient detail for an agent to act confidently.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity. It does not mention what the report contains, whether date ranges are required (though schema indicates required params), or any nuances. Given no output schema, the lack of clarity about the return format is a significant gap. An agent would need to infer from the name and schema alone, which is not ideal.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when the schema is complete. No additional clarification is needed from the description.

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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'campaign reporting', which is clear at a basic level. However, it does not specify what 'reporting' includes (metrics, date ranges, scope) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like ad_manager_fb_get_reporting or ad_manager_fb_get_reporting_list. It is not a tautology but is vague enough to leave the agent guessing about the exact purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to siblings. The agent is left without any context to choose the appropriate tool.

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