Api campaigns metrics retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the slug — no indication of what metric data is returned, whether it requires a campaign in a particular state, or any scoping — so it offers no behavioral value on top of annotations.

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?

It is a single machine-generated identifier rather than prose; it is short but not informative. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose to structure.

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 metrics-retrieval endpoint with an undocumented required id, no output schema, and dense sibling competition, the description supplies none of the context needed to call it correctly or distinguish it from alternatives.

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% and the single required 'id' parameter is undocumented. The description says nothing about what the id refers to (campaign id presumably) or its format, so the gap is entirely unaddressed.

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 is just the machine-generated slug "api_campaigns_metrics_retrieve" restated, which is tautological with the name and title. It hints at retrieving campaign metrics but gives no verb-object statement beyond the identifier, and doesn't differentiate from siblings like campaigns_status_retrieve or campaigns_object_retrieve.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what it returns, or how it differs from the many sibling campaign retrieval tools. An agent must guess based on the name alone.

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