affiliate_awin_get_campaign_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses return behavior ('Returns campaign report rows plus the exact query and raw Awin response'), which is useful, but it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation (only implied by 'Fetch').

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, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose, with no redundant information. It is concise and to the point.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, defaults, how to construct a valid request, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted. The statement about returning 'the exact query' hints at debugging value but lacks the detail needed for an agent to fully understand invocation.

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 0% with 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'campaign' concept and the metrics returned, leaving from, to, dateType, interval, timezone, advertiserIds, and includeNumbersWithoutCampaign entirely unexplained. This is a significant gap for a tool with optional parameters.

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 fetches Awin publisher performance aggregated by campaign parameter, using a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Awin publisher performance'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_advertiser_performance and get_creative_performance by emphasizing the campaign-level aggregation.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when the user tracks placements with the campaign parameter and wants campaign-level clicks, sales, and commission.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the condition is clear enough to guide selection among performance-report siblings.

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