get_campaign_sub_reports

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

The description states 'Read-only, no side effects,' which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true). It adds valuable context about returning empty data for regular campaigns and varying format by campaign type, going beyond the annotation alone.

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?

Very concise: one sentence for purpose, brief usage guidelines, and structured Args/Returns sections. No unnecessary words, all sentences earn their 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description still provides useful return format details (A/B vs RSS). It covers prerequisites, type checks, and parameter source, making the tool usage clear and 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It describes campaign_id with format example, type constraints, and source, but does not mention the optional account parameter. This partially covers parameter semantics.

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 clear verb and specific resource: 'Retrieve child report data for A/B test, variate, or RSS campaign sub-items.' It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_campaign_report for regular campaigns, leaving no 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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Returns empty data for regular campaigns; use get_campaign_report instead. Check campaign type with get_campaign_details first.' This clearly outlines prerequisites and alternatives.

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