get_tiktok_hourly_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the underlying source endpoint, the stat_time_hour dimension, and—crucially—that hours are in the advertiser's account time zone. It does not cover permissions/auth needs, rate limits, or pagination. A meaningful addition beyond a bare description, but not a full behavioral profile for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: what it returns, where it comes from, and when to use it. Efficient and well-organized. The Spain dayparting example is arguably extra but adds practical value; not wasteful 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?

For a read-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description gives granularity, source endpoint, time-zone semantics, and usage context—enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks only auth/exclusion details, which is a minor gap given the structured fields present.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds scope/context (per campaign, granularity) but no parameter-level syntax or defaults beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns TikTok Ads performance') and pins down the exact granularity (hour-of-day 0–23 and day-of-week MONDAY–SUNDAY, per campaign). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_tiktok_campaign_performance (daily/aggregate) and parallels get_meta_hourly_performance / get_google_ads_hourly_performance for other platforms.

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?

It gives explicit use context ('Use for dayparting / ad-schedule analysis') and cites TikTok-specific patterns, but does not state when NOT to use it or explicitly route to the alternative hourly tool for other platforms. The intent is clear, but the alternative-selection guidance is implicit.

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