get_creative_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' connotes a safe read operation, and 'Results match the Ads Manager optimization event' is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure indicating metric alignment with Ads Manager rather than raw stats. But rate limits, data latency, and estimation/provisional-data caveats are not discussed, leaving only partial coverage for an annotation-less 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?

Two concise sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a distinct behavioral guarantee. Nothing is wasted or redundant with the name or schema.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys only a general sense of the result shape ('creative-level performance', video metrics) and does not specify what fields are returned or how pagination behaves via limit. Required parameters and enums are fully documented by the schema, but the absent output contract and lack of any exclusion guidance leaves a moderate gap for an agent.

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% — every parameter (ad_account_id, campaign_id, date_preset, time_range, sort_by, limit) already carries a meaningful description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description's mention of 'hook rate' loosely ties into the sort_by enum value hook_rate, but it adds no substantive meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Get creative-level performance' — and reinforces it with concrete example metrics ('hook rate, thruplay rate'), making the delivery clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_ad_creatives (which presumably returns creative objects, not metrics) and get_campaign_performance (campaign-level rollup), though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 this is the right tool when an agent needs per-creative performance data, especially video metrics, and that reported values align with the Ads Manager optimization event. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites like obtaining campaign_id from sibling tools — the usage context is implied, not prescribed.

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