Get Geographic Performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It says 'get' implying a read operation, but it does not explicitly state it is read-only, does not mention any auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple data retrieval tool this is minimal but acceptable; however, it adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 zero fluff. It states the action and the grouping dimension directly, making it efficient and easy to parse. No unnecessary words or details are present.

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?

Despite having a full schema and an output schema (as indicated by context), the description is incomplete for guiding an agent on when to use it. It lacks usage context (e.g., when to prefer this over other performance tools), behavioral caveats, and any details about what 'geographic location' means (country, city, etc.). The minimal description does not fully equip an agent to make an informed selection among many siblings.

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 parameter (date_range, manager_id, customer_id) having its own description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description provides no extra parameter context.

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 performance metrics broken down by geographic location, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('performance metrics') with a clear modifier ('geographic location'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_device_performance and get_campaign_performance by the geographic dimension, though it does not explicitly name an 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling performance tools. The description only states what it does, without mentioning when to choose it (e.g., 'use this when you need a location breakdown') or when not to use it. No alternatives are referenced.

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