get_campaign_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that money is decimal with currency, that enabled_only filters server-side, and that the date window can be explicit or last_n_days. It doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens if both date_range and last_n_days are provided. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs useful details into three sentences without excessive verbosity. The structure is logical: what it returns, then key details about money and filtering. It could be slightly more organized but is efficient overall.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain pagination (page_token), required identifiers (campaign_id, customer_id), or the interaction between date_range and last_n_days. An agent would need to infer or experiment to call this correctly. The description provides a good start but lacks critical operational details.

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%, so the description must compensate for 7 parameters. It mentions date window (explicit range or last_n_days), budget, bidding strategy, status trio, and enabled_only. However, it doesn't explain page_token, campaign_id, customer_id, or the exact format of date strings. The description covers some parameters but leaves several undocumented, which is a significant gap given zero schema coverage.

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 returns campaign metrics for a date window, including budget, bidding strategy, and status fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on campaign-level metrics rather than ad, keyword, or geo performance. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it loses a point for not directly differentiating from similar performance tools.

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 usage context: it's for campaign metrics with date range options and a server-side filter. It mentions 'enabled_only=true filters server-side,' which gives some guidance on when to use that parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ad_performance or get_keyword_performance, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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