get_campaign_downstream_roi

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses the data source (BigQuery view), aggregation behavior (all-time metrics, capped at 150 rows), filtering by start/end date, and required credentials. It implies read-only operation but does not explicitly state non-destructive nature. Overall, behavior is well-disclosed.

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 bulleted layers, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds value (data source, metrics, filtering, row cap, prerequisites). No extraneous 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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers the data source, layers, filtering, row cap, and prerequisites. Minor gap: missing parameter details for platform and campaign_id, but overall complete for a read-only query 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 coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the start_date/end_date filtering purpose. It does not elaborate on platform or campaign_id parameters, leaving their semantics ambiguous. The description should have described all four parameters to compensate for the schema gap.

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 compares campaign performance across three measurement layers (Platform, Traffic, Revenue) using a specific BigQuery view. It lists metrics and layers, and the mention of MTA attribution comparison distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or get_attribution_results.

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 explains when to use (comparing performance across layers) and mentions prerequisites (required project and dataset). However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or explicitly name alternative sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list.

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