get_video_report

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 says 'Get video campaign performance metrics,' which essentially restates the tool name and implies a read operation. It does not mention return format, data granularity, rate limits, or any side effects, adding no behavioral context beyond what the name already conveys.

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 terse sentence, but this is underspecification rather than effective conciseness. It does not earn its place by adding useful information; it merely states the obvious. A truly concise description would pack more meaning into a few words while avoiding redundancy.

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?

Given that this is a report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what metrics are returned and what the response looks like. It fails to do so, providing only a vague phrase. This is insufficient for a tool that likely returns complex performance 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 documents customerId but leaves dateRange without a description (50% coverage). The description itself mentions neither parameter, failing to compensate for the undocumented dateRange. It adds no meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('video campaign performance metrics'), which clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling report tools like get_campaign_performance or get_search_term_report. However, it does not elaborate on what specific metrics are included, which leaves some 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. It does not mention that it should be used for video campaigns specifically or that other tools are appropriate for non-video campaigns. There is no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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