get_geographic_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation through the word 'Get' but does not explain what metrics are returned, how data is aggregated, or if special permissions are required. The description essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise, being a single short phrase, but it is under-specified and merely rephrases the tool name. It does not earn its place because it adds no substantive information beyond what the name already conveys, making it more of a title than a useful description.

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 report tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a similarly named sibling (get_geographic_performance), this description is severely inadequate. It does not describe the report's contents, how parameters affect results, or how to distinguish it from other reporting tools. An agent would have no basis for selecting or invoking this tool correctly.

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 only 33%, with only customerId explicitly described. The dateRange and campaignIds parameters lack descriptions, and the tool description does not clarify their syntax, allowed values, or purpose. The description adds no value beyond the sparsely annotated schema.

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 'Get location performance report' clearly identifies the action (Get) and the resource (location performance report), making the tool's basic purpose understandable. However, it fails to differentiate this tool from the sibling 'get_geographic_performance', which appears nearly identical in function.

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 like get_geographic_performance or get_location_insights. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate.

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