get_creative_performance

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true, which is consistent with the description (a report). The description does not add extra behavioral details beyond the endpoint and required params. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate but doesn't provide additional transparency about rate limits, data freshness, or handling of optional parameters.

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 extremely concise (single sentence plus a fragment) with no wasted words. Key information (resource, endpoint, required/optional params) is front-loaded. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and could be slightly more informative without adding length.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and an output schema, the description only covers the basic requirement and optionality. It doesn't explain the report contents, date handling, or how to interpret results. Given the complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully helpful.

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 tool description's mention of campaignId and adGroupId adds marginal value. The description highlights which parameters are important (required/optional) but does not explain their meanings further. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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?

Description clearly states it's a performance report by creative, including the HTTP method and endpoint. It specifies required parameter (campaignId) and optional (adGroupId), which helps distinguish from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or get_adgroup_performance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource type (creative) in English, and the phrasing is somewhat terse.

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 gives minimal guidance: it mentions that campaignId is required and adGroupId is optional, implying when to use. But it does not provide any explicit use cases, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. Given the many sibling performance tools, more context would be beneficial.

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