ad_manager_google_get_campaign_reporting

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. However, the description adds no further behavioral context: no mention of what data is returned, whether it requires an active integration, or any rate-limit/pagination behavior. It contributes nothing beyond the annotation safety hints.

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 a single short sentence, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a reporting tool with multiple required parameters and many siblings, this is far too terse to be useful; it sacrifices essential detail for brevity.

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 the high number of sibling reporting tools and the absence of an output schema, this description is seriously inadequate. It does not explain what metrics are returned, how dates are formatted, whether timezone matters, or what the difference is from get_reporting or get_reporting_list. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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%, with each parameter documented (startDate, endDate, campaignId, locationId with a default). The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but since the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the structured data carries the informational load.

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 'Get campaign reporting' is nearly tautological, restating the tool name without specifying what metrics, scope, or ad platform details are included. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like ad_manager_google_get_reporting or ad_manager_google_get_reporting_list, so an agent cannot tell which reporting tool to choose without inspecting 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling reporting tools (e.g., ad_manager_fb_get_campaign_reporting or ad_manager_google_get_reporting). No mention of prerequisites, integration requirements, or whether it pertains to a specific ad platform beyond the name. Entirely unhelpful for selection.

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