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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral effects (cannot spend, hidden from default views) and clarifies it's the permanent-ish deletion mechanism. However, it doesn't mention reversibility or any downstream effects on reporting, which would be additional value, but it's already quite transparent.

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 action, and every word adds value. It is concise without sacrificing essential behavioral information.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation with no annotations or output schema), the description sufficiently explains the impact on the campaign status. It could include more about prerequisites or reversibility, but it is complete enough for an agent to understand the primary outcome and use case.

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 100%, so each parameter (profileId, campaignId, campaignType) is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters themselves, only contextualizing the overall effect. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Archive a campaign') and the resource, and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's the only way to 'delete' a campaign. It also specifies the consequences (cannot spend money, hidden from default views), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to effectively delete a campaign) and explains the behavioral outcome. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but it implies this is the go-to for removal, which is sufficient for basic guidance.

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

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, but it offers none. It does not mention side effects (e.g., billing activation, campaign limits), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens upon successful creation. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the core action and scope efficiently, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 mutation tool with 6 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It omits return values, side effects, prerequisites, and any operational context needed to safely invoke the tool, making it inadequate for autonomous agent use.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented with names/types/enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('advertising campaign') plus platform ('Amazon Ads'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_campaigns and archive_campaign by explicitly focusing on creation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where creation would be inappropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the verb 'create'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently discloses asynchronous behavior, the 5-second threshold, PENDING status, and the need to call get_report with the returned reportId. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but the key behaviors are covered.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose, sample metrics, and async follow-up behavior with no filler. Critical information is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully covers the main return scenarios and follow-up step. It could specify more about the immediate non-pending response shape, but the description is sufficient for correct tool selection and 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 description coverage is 100%, with each of the four parameters already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a campaign performance report and returns metrics like impressions, clicks, cost, and sales. It also distinguishes itself from siblings: get_campaigns lists campaigns, while get_report retrieves the completed async report.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool and explicitly directs users to get_report when a PENDING status is returned. It lacks a broader 'when not to use' statement, but the conditional handoff to get_report is strong guidance.

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

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

There are no annotations available, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It conveys that this is a non-mutating list operation and names its filters, but it does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, or what fields/campaign data are actually 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds relevant information. No filler or redundant explanation is present.

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 simple listing tool with three parameters and no nested objects, the description is mostly complete: it gives the output type and the available filters. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not address pagination or field-level return details, but these are not critical for basic tool selection.

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 schema covers all three parameters, including enum values for state and campaignType, so schema coverage is high. The description mostly restates these filter options without adding meaningful new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a list of advertising campaigns from Amazon Ads.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or get_report.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for retrieving campaigns and that state/type filters are optional. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_campaign_performance for performance data, so it stops short of the strongest guidance, but the core usage context is unambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'Retrieve' indicating a read operation, but provides no additional transparency about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The read-only nature is implicit from the verb.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simple nature of a get operation and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (bid amounts, match types). It could mention that all keywords are returned when no filters are applied, but the required profileId implies context. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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 schema already provides clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that filtering can be by campaign or ad group. It does not clarify parameter usage beyond what is already in the 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 clearly states the action (retrieve keywords), the target (specific campaign or ad group), and additional data (bid amounts, match types). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_campaigns or get_report.

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 implies filtering by campaign or ad group but does not explicitly contrast with other tools or provide guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

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 restates the read operation implied by the tool name and does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or what happens when no filters are provided. This adds minimal value beyond the name.

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 front-loads the verb and object, with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 is simple and has only three parameters, so the description is not severely incomplete. However, without an output schema or annotations, the description should have explained response behavior and the optionality of filters to be fully complete.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond echoing the campaign/ad group filter concept, which is already in the 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('product ads'), with scoping to 'a specific campaign or ad group.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_keywords and get_campaigns, which target different resources.

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 implies the tool is for fetching product ads associated with a campaign or ad group, but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor does it clarify that campaignId and adGroupId are optional filters. The phrase 'for a specific campaign or ad group' slightly conflicts with the schema, where both filters are optional.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication scoping and the listing behavior, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or what fields are returned. This is adequate but not rich for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. A small gap is the lack of information about what profile data is returned (e.g., IDs needed for other calls), but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds minor context about the scope of the list but there is little else needed given the empty schema. The description does not contradict the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all available Amazon Ads profiles (accounts)') and adds scope ('that the authenticated user has access to'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_campaigns or get_report.

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 implies usage context—scoping results to the authenticated user—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention that profile IDs from this call are prerequisites for other API calls. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read/download operation, implies a prerequisite (prior report request), and mentions checking status, which covers the key behaviors. However, it doesn't state explicitly that it is read-only or describe potential outputs, but the core safety and workflow behavior are clear.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the action, the second gives the trigger condition. No filler, fully front-loaded, and every word contributes.

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 small tool with two well-covered parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently completes the context: it tells the agent what to docj and when. Missing details like output format or error handling are not critical given the tool's simplicity, but a brief note on return payload would be slightly better.

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 100% with decent descriptions, but the tool description adds crucial context: it links reportId to the output of get_campaign_performance)Skip. This gives the agent more semantic grounding than the raw schema alone, especially for the reportId parameter.

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's dual purpose: checking status and downloading a previously requested report. It explicitly references the prerequisite from a sibling tool (get_campaign_performance returning PENDING), which distinguishes it from the creation tool and clarifies its role in the workflow.

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?

It explicitly says 'after get_campaign_performance returns PENDING status', giving a clear condition for when to use this tool. This provides direct usage context without ambiguity, and no alternatives are needed since this is the designated follow-up.

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

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 reveals a mutation but does not mention permission requirements, response behavior, idempotency, constraints on bid values, or side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a write operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is concise, though slightly under-specified in other dimensions.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with fully documented schema, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from explaining what happens after the update, such as return value or validation errors.

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 already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds only the high-level intent of changing a bid, but it does not provide extra or contextual meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and names the exact resource ('the bid amount for a specific keyword'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling retrieval tools and create/archive actions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related workflows such as looking up keywords or profiles first. The description states only what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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