get_campaign_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the mock nature and path to live, but omits details about error behavior, rate limits, or side effects. This is acceptable but leaves gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key usage note. No unnecessary words, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 output schema, no annotations, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description does not sufficiently explain what metrics are returned or how to use the parameter. It is too brief for a complete understanding.

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 one required 'platform' parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what values are valid or how they affect output, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('mock ad-platform campaign metrics'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on audits and other checks. It also hints at transitioning to live usage with real API keys.

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 implies the tool is for mock data and suggests upgrading to live by plugging in API keys. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context of mock vs. live is clear, and sibling tools have different purposes, so guidance is adequate.

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