get_performance

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: side effects (read-only), authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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 well-structured with clear sections but is somewhat verbose. The 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' sections overlap, causing repetition. A more streamlined version would be equally informative.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers behavioral context and usage. However, it lacks specifics about the metrics returned (e.g., dimensions like clicks, impressions) and the 'When to use' guidance is generic. Slightly incomplete for full agent comprehension.

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 input schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage), and the description's 'Args' section only repeats parameter names with generic phrases like 'The campaign id to analyze or process.' It fails to explain the purpose or expected format of each parameter, especially 'api_key' which is described as something to 'analyze' rather than authenticate.

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 'Get creative performance metrics' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_best_performing' by focusing on general performance data.

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 includes explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use sections, providing context for appropriate usage. However, it does not compare directly to sibling tools like 'get_best_performing' or 'get_campaign', which would further clarify when to choose this tool.

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