get_campaign_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation and a stub, but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when called locally. Adequate but minimal.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and an important caveat (stub status).

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?

The tool has 7 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the return metrics broadly but omits details on output structure or pagination. Given it is a stub, completeness is acceptable but could be improved.

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% and each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as highlighting required or commonly used parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 reads campaign health, spend, and ACOS metrics, and categorizes it as [Ads / read]. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_sb_campaign_performance or get_sd_campaign_performance, which could confuse an AI agent.

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 mentions it is a stub and hosted endpoint only, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., more specific campaign tools). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, limiting the agent's ability to decide correctly.

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