find_scaling_opportunities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool finds campaigns based on criteria but doesn't explain what 'scaling' entails (e.g., increasing budget, expanding targeting), whether it's a read-only analysis or triggers actions, or any limitations like data freshness or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Find campaigns ready for scaling based on ROI and conversion volume.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's complexity (analyzing campaigns for scaling decisions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'scaling' means, output format, or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and analytical purpose, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing details for all parameters (e.g., min_roi as 'Minimum ROI percentage (default: 50)'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying ROI and conversion volume are key criteria but doesn't elaborate on semantics like how ROI is calculated or what 'conversions' refer to. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Find campaigns ready for scaling based on ROI and conversion volume.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('campaigns'), and criteria ('ROI and conversion volume'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'find_top_zones' or 'find_underperforming_zones', which might also identify campaigns or zones for optimization, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings such as 'find_top_zones' or 'find_underperforming_zones', which could serve similar analytical purposes. Without this context, users might struggle to choose the right tool.

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