get_campaign_performance

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.