get_sb_campaign_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It notes 'Hosted endpoint only; this local stdio server is an introspection stub', which clarifies that the actual functionality is remote and this is a stub. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or the nature of the metrics returned.

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, very concise and front-loaded. The first sentence directly states the purpose, and the second provides critical behavioral context about the stub nature. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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?

Despite good schema coverage, the description lacks explanation of output format, metric types, or any limitations beyond the stub note. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, more context is needed for complete understanding. The stub clarification is helpful but insufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are adequate but not enhanced.

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 'Sponsored Brands campaign metrics', clearly indicating it retrieves metrics for Sponsored Brands campaigns. The '[Ads / read]' prefix clarifies it's a read operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or get_sd_campaign_performance, leaving room for ambiguity.

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. Given the large number of sibling get_* tools, this omission makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool without additional context.

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