get_campaign_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that performance metrics are retrieved, but does not explain what metrics are included, whether data is aggregated, pagination behavior, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a reporting 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 that essentially restates the tool name, providing minimal informative value. It is not effectively concise; it is under-specified and does not earn its place by adding new information beyond the name.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a brief description. It fails to explain what 'performance metrics' means (e.g., impressions, clicks, conversions), what date ranges are supported, or how to interpret results. This is incomplete for a tool that returns sophisticated data.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the schema supplies the necessary meaning. The description adds no parameter detail itself, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool retrieves campaign performance metrics, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('campaign performance metrics'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_campaigns (which lists campaigns) and get_asset_performance (which focuses on assets), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, filters, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. Users are left to infer usage solely from the name and parameters.

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