Get Campaign Video History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with 'cumulative' (values accumulate rather than per-period deltas) and 'bounded' (range constraints), but says nothing about range limits, data freshness, or what a sample contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key qualifiers (bounded, cumulative, one video) come before any detail. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why behavioral and parameter gaps remain.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition covers the core concept and, via annotations, the safety profile. It still leaves an agent guessing about return shape, metric content, and parameter pairing, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 compensate. It conveys the concepts behind granularity (daily/weekly/monthly) and implies a date-bounded query scoped to one campaign/video pair, but leaves unexplained the relationship between campaign_id and video_id, date/timezone format, and that granularity defaults to 'day'.

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), resource (campaign video history), and scope: bounded daily/weekly/monthly cumulative samples for one tracked video. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from related siblings like list_campaign_video_performance or get_campaign_performance, leaving the agent to infer the history-vs-current split.

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 phrase 'bounded ... for one tracked campaign video' implies usage (time-series history for a single video within a date range), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as list_campaign_video_performance. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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