Get Ad Group Performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get' and 'broken down by ad group', implying a read operation and grouping, but it doesn't disclose details like whether results are limited, whether filtering by campaign affects the grouping, or any side effects or access requirements. The value added beyond the tool name is minimal.

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. It is concise, though somewhat thin because it omits behavioral or contextual guidance that could have been added without much bloat.

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?

With 100% parameter schema coverage and an output schema present, the core callable details are covered. Still, the description lacks context about when to select this over similar sibling toolsable and provides no behavioral caveats, making it minimally viable rather than fully self-sufficient.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail, but it does clarify that the result is organized by ad group rather than by campaign or ad. This is adequate but not a strong compensation for what the schema already provides.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource (ad group performance) with a grouping dimension ('broken down by ad group'). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or get_ad_performance, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's purpose: an agent can infer to use this when it needs performance metrics at the ad-group level. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool should be preferred for different granularities.

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