get_performance_report

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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data vs. raw metrics). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 that front-loads the core purpose. It lists relevant metrics concisely without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's for aggregated reporting versus other performance tools.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a read operation but incomplete. It specifies the metrics returned but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral constraints. With 4 parameters and sibling tools that may overlap, more context would help an agent use it correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters (date_from, date_to, group_by, campaign_id) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying metrics are returned, which doesn't compensate for schema details. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 detailed performance statistics with specific metrics listed (impressions, clicks, conversions, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('performance statistics'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_campaign_performance' or 'compare_periods' that might also provide performance data.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_campaign_performance', 'compare_periods', and 'find_top_zones' that likely overlap in functionality, there's no indication of this tool's specific scope, prerequisites, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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