get_campaign_cost

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

Annotations already carry the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive profile, so the description's burden is lower. It adds meaningful context by disclosing the allow-list requirement and the daily-row granularity, which are behavioral constraints not present in the structured metadata.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the access constraint is appended without bloating the text.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameter documentation in the schema, so the description is the only source of operational detail. It fails to explain date range behavior, optional filters, return shape, or failure behavior for non-allow-listed customers, leaving important invocation details unspecified.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for missing parameter meaning. It only contextualizes customer_id through the allow-listed customer phrase; start_date, end_date, campaign_ids, and status semantics remain unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return daily campaign cost rows'. The qualifier 'for an explicitly allow-listed customer' adds useful scope and distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_campaign_details or get_campaign_performance, which target different data.

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 when to use this tool: when daily campaign cost rows are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when another sibling tool would be more appropriate, so routing guidance is left mostly to inference.

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