Sa360.Report.Campaign

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not confirm this is a read-only report, does not mention the default LAST_30_DAYS window, and says nothing about rate limits, required permissions, or result size. Only the word 'report' implies a non-mutating operation.

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?

It is a single short phrase with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The one piece of information present (campaign performance, SA360) is front-loaded, which is the only structural strength.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition is not complete enough: the agent cannot tell how to scope the date range or confirm the tool is a safe read. A sentence on read-only behavior and the date_range default would close the gap.

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% for two parameters, and the description mentions neither. It does not explain that customer_id is required or that date_range defaults to LAST_30_DAYS and what format/values it accepts, so the parameter gap is left entirely unaddressed.

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 phrase 'Campaign performance report (SA360)' identifies the resource (campaign performance data) and the platform, which is enough to distinguish it from sa360.report.ad_group. However, there is no verb and no explicit statement of what the report returns or how it differs from ads.report.campaign, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not mention the obvious alternatives in the sibling list (ads.report.campaign, sa360.report.ad_group). The agent must guess which report tool is appropriate for a given request.

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