get_campaign_sub_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, no side effects, authenticated via API key, max 10 concurrent requests, safe to retry, and return format variations. This provides complete transparency for the agent.

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 well-structured with a clear overview, usage details, and parameter/return documentation. While it is somewhat lengthy due to the return format details, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability. A minor improvement would be to further condense the return section, but it is still effective.

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 single parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: it explains when to use, what to expect for different campaign types, and key behavioral and param details. The agent has all necessary information to select and invoke the 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?

The single parameter campaign_id is explained with an example, valid campaign types, and how to obtain it (from list_campaigns). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully by adding essential context beyond the schema's type and title.

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 retrieves child report data for A/B test, variate, or RSS campaign sub-items, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_campaign_report by noting that regular campaigns return empty data and directing users to the alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance: only for 'absplit', 'variate', or 'rss' campaigns, and advises checking campaign type with get_campaign_details first. It also says what not to use it for (regular campaigns) and recommends get_campaign_report instead. Additionally, states it is read-only and safe to retry.

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