campaign_roi

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

With no annotations provided, the description thoroughly discloses all behavioral traits: read-only and stateless, no side effects, idempotent, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, and data privacy. This fully compensates for the missing annotations.

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 (Args, Behavior, When to use/not use, Behavioral Transparency). It is front-loaded with purpose and parameters. Some redundancy exists between the 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' sections, but overall it is efficient and organized.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, behavior, side effects, and error handling. It lists the computed metrics but does not detail the output format or calculation assumptions. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args' section provides meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Total campaign spend in dollars', 'Total revenue attributed to campaign'). This adds significant value beyond the schema, though units and constraints could be more explicit.

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 tool calculates comprehensive campaign ROI with specific metrics (ROAS, CPA, CPC, CPM, CTR, conversion rate) and performance assessment. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ab_test_analyze and ad_copy_generator by focusing on ROI calculation.

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. While the when-to-use is generic, it provides context for ROI analysis. It lacks explicit alternatives or prerequisites but still offers clear guidance.

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