get_lead_gen_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'retrieval' (implying read-only), but gives no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or potential errors. The term 'performance' is vague and does not elaborate on what 'performance' encompasses beyond the three listed metrics.

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 first sentence is concise and informative. The second sentence, 'Essential for B2B marketers running lead gen campaigns', adds no operational value and reads as marketing fluff. The description could be trimmed to a single sentence without loss of useful information, so it is not optimally concise.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It lists three metrics ('form submissions, qualified leads, cost per lead'), which gives some idea, but it omits other plausible metrics like impressions, clicks, or conversion rates. It also does not clarify how parameters like timeGranularity or campaignIds affect the result, nor does it mention pagination or limits. The description is adequate for a basic call but leaves gaps for a thorough understanding.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with clear descriptions, including enums and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides. It does mention the output metrics ('form submissions, qualified leads, cost per lead'), which indirectly clarifies the purpose of date filters, but this does not enhance parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('retrieves'), a clear resource ('lead generation form performance'), and the key metrics returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance and get_creative_performance, which target different resources.

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 mentions it is 'essential for B2B marketers running lead gen campaigns', but this is promotional rather than actionable guidance. It does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings like get_campaign_performance or get_conversion_performance, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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