get_video_performance_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses metric scope, required filter conditions, data_level choices, and date format, which helps. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, date-range limits, or other API-level caveats such as auth or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, metric list in a clear block, and constraints in short, direct sentences. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with output schema presentheb, the description covers the core invocation requirements: purpose, required ID filter, valid data_level values, and date format. It lacks detail on dimensions and pagination, but an agent can reasonably invoke the tool with the information provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for data_level, date format, and the conditional requirement on campaign/adgroup/ad IDs. However, several parameters such as dimensions, page, and page_size are left unexplained, and the description does not cover all 10 parameters.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get TikTok-specific video engagement metrics' and enumerates the exact metrics returned. It explicitly positions the tool against the 'standard integrated report', distinguishing it from sibling reporting tools.

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 clearly notes that at least one of campaign_ids, adgroup_ids, or ad_ids is required)Skip and specifies valid data_level values and date format. It gives a clear usage context via 'not available in the standard integrated report', though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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