get_geo_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 implies read-only behavior via 'Return' but does not mention permission requirements, rate limits, data aggregation details, or any quirks. The output schema helps but the description itself adds minimal behavioral transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is not bloated, though it sacrifices depth for brevity. For a tool with a well-documented schema, this level of conciseness is acceptable.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation makes the tool minimally complete. However, the description lacks behavioral and usage context, and does not differentiate from sibling performance reporting tools. Given the abundance of similar tools, more contextual information would be valuable.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptive parameter comments, including the look-back window and geo_level options. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, 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 returns performance segmented by geographic location, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_device_performance. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('performance') with a clear qualifier, though it does not enumerate the specific performance metrics included.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_device_performance or get_campaign_performance. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit context for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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