get_performance_report

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a read-only operation. The description adds a useful behavioral trait: '하위 레벨은 계정 내 전체 엔티티를 자동 열거' (lower levels automatically enumerate all entities), which implies potentially large result sets. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, response size limits, or data freshness.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first and third sentences convey useful scope and behavior, but the second sentence ('인사이트 도출용 1급 툴') is somewhat subjective and adds little operational value.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, output schema present), the description omits key contextual details: when to choose this integrated report over level-specific siblings, and how the 'level' parameter interacts with the auto-enumeration behavior. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a tool with this many parameters.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain each one. It does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the general '레벨 지정' hint, which maps to the 'level' parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides a level-specified integrated performance report ('레벨 지정 통합 성과 리포트'), with a distinct mention of auto-enumerating all lower-level entities. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_*_performance tools beyond the 'integrated' qualifier.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling performance tools (e.g., get_account_performance, get_campaign_performance). The phrase '인사이트 도출용 1급 툴' vaguely implies a high-level analytical use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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