Get Campaign Performance

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the window is interpreted as explicit UTC, and returned figures distinguish lifetime metrics from missing-history coverage, which tells an agent how to interpret the payload.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler; the windowing constraint and the data-coverage caveat are both front-loaded and each clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return structure (totals plus separately labeled lifetime and missing-history metrics). However, for a four-parameter read tool with 0% schema coverage, the silence on granularity and campaign_id leaves the agent guessing.

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%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining all four parameters. It clarifies the UTC interpretation of the start/end window, but says nothing about campaign_id or the 'granularity' enum (day/week/month, default day), leaving a meaningful bucketing control completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('campaign totals') scoped to a campaign over an explicit window, which is enough to separate it from per-creator or per-video performance siblings. It never names an alternative tool, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not point to alternatives such as get_campaign_revenue or list_campaign_creator_performance, even though the sibling list contains several closely overlapping performance reads. The only steering is the requirement of an explicit time window.

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