Run Performance Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that reports are synchronous and immediate, and that they cover auction and reservation ads data. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, can be expensive/slow, or has other side effects, which would be valuable for a report-generation 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action ('Run a synchronous performance report') is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds distinctive behavioral context about immediacy and data scope without redundancy.

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 100% schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and the clear statement of synchronous behavior, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when this tool should be chosen over the sibling summary/retrieval tools, but that gap is partially covered by the word 'synchronous' and the report-oriented framing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to restate parameter details. It adds mild contextual value by referencing campaign/ad set/ad levels, which maps to the 'level' parameter, but it does not meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the resource ('a synchronous performance report') with clear scoping to campaigns, ad sets, or ads. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_*' tools by framing this as report generation rather than simple retrieval, and the mention of auction/reservation data adds useful specificity.

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 when an immediate, synchronous report is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_campaign_summary or get_campaigns. No when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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