get_creative_performance

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

With readOnlyHint=true already indicating a safe read, the description adds useful behavioral context: if creative_ids is not supplied, the tool automatically enumerates creatives (optionally scoped by adgroup_id). This goes beyond the annotation. It does not cover pagination or response shape, but the output schema exists to cover return structure.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose and endpoint. However, the phrase 'creativeId 필수' is slightly confusing and could have been phrased more clearly to avoid implying a parameter that does not exist in the schema.

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 tool with 10 parameters and rich schema descriptions, the description provides only minimal context on auto-enumeration. It doesn't clarify the relationship between creative_ids and adgroup_id, or how to choose among the multiple sibling performance report tools. The output schema covers return values, but the overall description is just enough to be functional, not complete.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a note about creative_id being required or auto-enumerated, but it uses a different singular name ('creativeId') than the actual 'creative_ids' parameter, and it doesn't add meaning about other parameters like dimension or metrics_group.

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 this is a per-creative performance report with the exact endpoint (GET /creatives/report), distinguishing it from sibling performance tools (e.g., get_campaign_performance, get_adgroup_performance). However, it refers to 'creativeId 필수' while the actual schema parameter is 'creative_ids' and no parameter is required, creating slight ambiguity.

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 for creative-level performance reporting and explains the auto-enumeration behavior when creative_ids are omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_performance_report or provide exclusion criteria.

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