getCampaignPerformance

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint and openWorldHint). It does not mention side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or data freshness. The listed metrics are informational but not behavioral. With annotations present, a score of 3 reflects that the description meets the minimum for a read-only tool.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and lists specific metrics without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It tells what metrics are returned but does not clarify if those are the only metrics, the format of the response, or whether pagination applies. It is adequate but leaves gaps that might require the agent to make assumptions.

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 coverage is 100% with the only parameter 'campaign_id' described as 'Campaign ID'. The description does not elaborate on format, source, or constraints beyond the schema's minLength. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra semantic value for the parameter.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed performance metrics for a campaign', and explicitly lists specific metrics (clicks, conversions, revenue, EPC), making it unmistakable what the tool does. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like getClickAnalytics or getEarningsSummary by focusing on campaign-level aggregated metrics.

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 related tools (e.g., getClickAnalytics, getEarningsSummary, listCommissions). It does not mention prerequisites, campaign_id source, or when not to use the tool. This omission forces the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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