get_sponsor_performance

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

The description discloses the credit cost (25 credits per page) and platform-specific differences (YouTube-only for estimatedCost/estimatedCreatorCPM, null for Instagram). No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden and does well, but could mention rate limits or whether modifications occur.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear structure: purpose, return fields, cost note. Each sentence adds value without unnecessary repetition.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a good overview of return structure and cost. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior (how to iterate) and error conditions, leaving minor gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate much. It adds context about the return structure which indirectly helps choose values for parameters like sortBy, but does not directly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 it returns detailed per-content sponsorship performance for a brand, listing the return fields and noting the credit cost. It distinguishes itself from generic performance tools by focusing on sponsorship data per content.

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 brand sponsorship performance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sponsor_summary or get_sponsor_creators. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance provided.

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