get_google_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), requires a customer_id from another tool, uses specific date formats, and has default date logic. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a tool with output schema.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and metrics, second provides essential parameter guidance. It's front-loaded with core functionality and efficiently adds necessary context. Every sentence earns its place by addressing critical usage information.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains parameter semantics and usage context well. However, as a read tool with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like rate limits or error cases, slightly reducing completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning: explains customer_id source ('from get_my_accounts'), date format ('YYYY-MM-DD'), and default behavior ('last 30 days'). This covers all 3 parameters well, though it doesn't detail null handling for dates or parameter constraints beyond format.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('Google Ads performance metrics') with specific metrics listed (spend, impressions, clicks, CTR, CPC, conversions, ROAS). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_meta_performance' (different platform) and analysis tools (e.g., 'analyze_account_ads') by focusing on metric retrieval rather than analysis.

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 clear context for when to use it: for Google Ads metrics with date filtering. It explicitly references 'customer_id comes from get_my_accounts' and gives date format/range guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., vs. 'get_account_analysis'), though the purpose distinction is implied.

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