get_benchmarks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It correctly implies a read-only operation but fails to disclose details like what parameters are required or the structure of the returned data.

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 sentence that front-loads the essential information (what is retrieved and for what purpose). Every word adds value and there is no waste.

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 two enum parameters with no required fields and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain the output format or default behavior (e.g., when no filters are applied), but the core purpose is conveyed.

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% and the description does not explain the purpose of the two parameters (platform and objective). The enum values provide some context, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'industry/platform benchmarks', explicitly listing the key metrics (CTR, CPC, CPM, CPA, ROAS). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_campaign_performance by specifying it returns benchmarks for comparison.

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 implied usage context by stating 'to compare against actual performance', but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools.

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