get_campaign_performance

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation by disclosing the HTTP GET method and the auto-enumeration behavior when campaign IDs are omitted. It is consistent with the annotation and adds useful operational detail.

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 sentence and is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and endpoint. The contradictory '필수 — 미지정 시' structure makes it logically incoherent, and the reference to a non-existent parameter harms clarity despite the brevity.

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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with a rich schema and output schema, but the description is minimal and does not explain how to distinguish it from get_performance_report. It also fails to resolve the campaignId/campaign_ids discrepancy, leaving the agent under-informed for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. However, the description introduces 'campaignId' which does not exist in the schema (the actual field is campaign_ids) and claims it is required while the schema marks it optional. It adds no new semantic value and actually misleads by contradicting 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 states '캠페인별 성과 리포트' (campaign performance report) and the endpoint GET /campaigns/report, making the verb and resource explicit. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling performance tools such as get_account_performance, get_adgroup_performance, and get_creative_performance.

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 provides usage context by saying campaignId is required and that unspecified IDs cause automatic enumeration of all account campaigns. However, this is contradictory (required vs. omitted) and the description does not reference alternatives like get_performance_report or explain when this tool should be preferred over the generic report tool.

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