Get Device Performance

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 states the action and breakdown, with no mention of read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a data retrieval tool, this is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent without safety context.

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 with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise and immediately communicates the core purpose. However, it lacks any additional structure or context that could be useful, but the length is acceptable.

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 has three parameters (one required) and an output schema exists, the description covers the basic purpose. It does not explain any prerequisites, limitations, or return format details, but the output schema likely handles that. The main gap is the lack of usage context relative to sibling tools, making the description slightly incomplete for optimal agent decision-making.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about how parameters relate to the device breakdown. It does not explain that date_range and manager_id affect the metrics. Since the schema handles parameter definitions, a baseline 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 action (get), the resource (performance metrics), and the specific breakdown (by device type: mobile, desktop, tablet). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_geographic_performance or get_campaign_performance, which focus on different dimensions. The verb and resource are precise and 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 implies usage for device-specific performance analysis but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or reference to sibling tools. The context is clear enough to infer, but explicit guidance is missing.

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