get_campaign_performance

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns data and is likely read-only, but it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or permission requirements. The description is minimal for a data retrieval 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, and the second provides key details about the output. There is no superfluous 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?

Given the complexity of the sibling tools and lack of output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool returns but does not differentiate from similar tools or provide enough detail about parameter usage. It adequately covers basic functionality but has gaps.

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?

Only one of three parameters (campaign_id) has a description in the schema. The description mentions 'date range' but does not explicitly link to date_from and date_to. It adds some context about the output format (per-day records and aggregates) but fails to explain parameter semantics or valid formats for dates.

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 'historical performance data for a campaign'. It also specifies the return format with per-day records and aggregated totals, making the purpose well-defined. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance_report, which could cause ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_campaign_performance_report or get_campaign_performance_metrics. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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