x ads get campaign reach

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by noting that native fields and pagination are preserved and by clarifying that `_micro` monetary fields are millionths of the account currency. This extra detail is genuinely helpful for interpreting responses.

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 primary purpose. The second part about native fields, pagination, and `_micro` units is valuable but slightly awkwardly phrased due to the missing separator between the purpose and the field notes, making it less clean than it could be.

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 read-only metrics tool with fully documented parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics. It explains the scope and unit conventions that are not obvious from the schema alone. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but these are less critical given the read-only annotations and output schema.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly, including account ID source, ISO 8601 time format, and the max 20 campaign IDs. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the general metric context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: retrieving reach and average-frequency metrics for campaigns. This specific metric and resource focus distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign or get_account_stats without needing to open schemas.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. While the purpose implies a read-only metrics use case, it does not help an agent decide between this and other campaign or stat tools.

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