get_ad_benchmark_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose useful configuration behavior: default dimensions, allowed dimension values, and an objective_type example. However, it omits output behavior, failure/empty cases, time range, and any side effects, which is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the opening sentence states the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds a specific usage constraint. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary background.

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?

The tool is straightforward and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is less critical. But with no annotations, no alternative guidance, and incomplete parameter coverage (advertiser_id), the description is adequate for a basic call but not fully complete for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 description adds value by explaining ad_ids (required), dimensions (allowed values and default), and giving an objective_type example, which is important since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it omits advertiser_id, a required parameter, and its claim that 'dimensions defaults to ['PLACEMENT']' conflicts with the schema's `default: null`, creating ambiguity for the agent.

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 ('Get'), a concrete resource ('benchmark metrics'), names the exact metrics (CTR, CVR, CPM, CPC), and defines the scope ('for specific ads compared to industry averages'). This clearly separates it from sibling reporting tools like get_reports_tool and get_creative_fatigue_tool.

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?

Provides practical invocation hints (ad_ids required, dimensions defaults, allowed dimension values, objective_type example), but never explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to. The 'compared to industry averages' framing implies benchmark use, but there are no exclusions or routing to sibling tools.

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