get_campaign_performance

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful access-related detail about allow-listing, but it does not explain output shape, pagination, result limits, or how filters interact.

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 efficient sentence with no filler: the action and main constraint are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though slightly terse for a tool with six parameters.

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, six parameters, and overlapping sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It leaves important context implicit: what metrics 'performance' includes, how date parameters behave, how multiple customers are handled, and when this tool should be preferred over siblings.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameter meaning, but it only vaguely refers to customers. It does not clarify start_date/end_date formats, status filtering, campaign_ids, or how customer_id and customer_ids relate.

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 identifies the action ('Return'), the resource ('campaign performance rows'), and a key scoping constraint ('explicitly allow-listed customers'). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_campaign_details or get_campaign_cost, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as get_campaign_cost, get_campaign_details, or list_campaigns. The allow-listed customer phrase implies an access restriction, but prerequisites and alternative conditions are left unstated.

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