google_ads_performance_forecaster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states it uses historical data and returns confidence ranges, which is informative. However, it does not disclose data requirements, freshness, or whether the tool modifies data (likely read-only). It adds some context but lacks full 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 well-structured with a clear opening, bullet points for forecast metrics, parameter descriptions, and an example. It is reasonably concise, though the list of forecast metrics could be integrated into the main sentence. Overall, it earns its length.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (assumed from context signals), the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage example. It could mention assumptions or data requirements, but it is sufficiently complete for a forecast tool.

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 does so effectively by specifying '10 digits, no hyphens' for customer_id, 'Campaign ID to forecast' for campaign_id, and '7-90' for forecast_days. This adds meaningful constraints and usage details beyond the schema's type/default.

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 it predicts future campaign performance based on historical trends, listing specific metrics (spend, conversions, ROAS, confidence intervals). This distinguishes it from siblings like google_ads_campaign_performance (current/historical) and google_ads_keyword_forecast (keyword-level). The verb 'predict' and resource 'campaign performance' are specific.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like google_ads_keyword_forecast and google_ads_campaign_performance exist, but no distinction is made. No prerequisites or context for use are mentioned.

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