get_kvp_report_by_network

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

The readOnlyHint annotation assures safe read operations, lowering the bar. The description adds the detail that revenue is in micros, but lacks information about output format, pagination, limits, or error handling. Minimal additional transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence. It is efficient and gets to the point, though it could include slightly more detail without significant bloat.

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?

With no output schema, the description should provide richer context about return values. It only mentions revenue in micros, omitting other metrics, grouping details, and behavioral aspects. Incomplete for a 5-parameter report tool.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on any parameters beyond the schema, adding no extra value.

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 the tool retrieves KVP metrics across a network, grouped by a GAM key, with revenue in micros. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_kvp_report_by_domain and get_report_by_network, though KVP abbreviation is not expanded.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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