kadam_adv_get_traffic_forecast

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the forecast is derived from yesterday's auction, and an empty curve signals 'could not be built' rather than zero traffic — a non-obvious output semantics detail.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage timing, then the interpretation caveat. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of return semantics and does so for the key edge case (empty curve). It could say more about the shape of a successful forecast response, but is adequate for an agent to call and interpret the 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 100% for all 7 parameters, including enum semantics (cpa_target forecast as cpc) and the campaignId exclusion behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema is complete.

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?

States a specific verb (forecast) and resource (traffic a bid can buy for a targeting set) with the data basis (yesterday's auction). No sibling tool forecasts traffic, and the description makes the tool's distinct role obvious.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'before creating a campaign or raising a bid,' which frames it as a pre-flight check. It does not name alternative tools or when-not to use it, but no sibling overlaps enough to require that.

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