Best Performers

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns ranked results based on various metrics, which is consistent with read-only behavior. It does not disclose any unexpected side effects or limitations, but the annotation already covers the main behavioral trait.

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 extremely concise with only three sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds requirements and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and a read-only annotation, the description provides key context: purpose, required params, prerequisite, and example use cases. An output schema is absent, but the output is implied (list of top performers). The description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's role without gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., level has enum values explained). The description mentions the required parameters and their roles but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It provides context for adAccountId (where to get it), but that is already in the schema description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves top performing ads/campaigns ranked by metrics like revenue and ROAS for a date range. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('top performing ads/campaigns'), and distinguishes from other hyros tools by focusing on ranking and performance metrics.

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 explicit use cases ('what are my best ads this week?', 'which campaigns have the highest ROAS this month?') and a prerequisite ('Use hyros_get_sources to find your ad account IDs first'). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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