reports_ads_in_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only states what is returned, with no information on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavioral traits like whether results are paginated or aggregated. This is insufficient for a mutation-free report tool.

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 sentence, concise and without redundancy. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from usage notes.

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 11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and complex filtering/pagination options, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the response structure, how 'rolled up' affects data, or constraints like the groupBy/granularity interaction noted in the schema.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. With 64% schema description coverage, some parameters lack documentation, and the description does not clarify them (e.g., groupBy restrictions, selector structure). A baseline of 3 would require coverage >80%, so 2 is appropriate.

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 'Ad-level performance (per Custom Product Page / creative variation) rolled up across the campaign,' specifying the resource (ads), scope (campaign), and granularity (custom product page/creative variation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like reports_adgroups (adgroup-level) and reports_campaigns (campaign-level).

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 implies usage for ad-level performance across a campaign but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reports_adgroups or reports_search_terms. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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