get_campaign_performance_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns live data from BigQuery, lists the metrics returned, and highlights that three ROAS numbers are shown side-by-side. This is good transparency for a read-only report, though it omits any mention of authentication or rate limits.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 6 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the output but leaves agents without critical information on how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides no explanation for any of the 6 parameters (status, dates, team_id, platform, funnel_stage). The agent cannot infer parameter meanings from the current text.

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 queries live campaign performance from BigQuery and lists specific metrics returned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or get_campaign_performance_metrics, so it stops short of a 5.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires BigQuery mode') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. This is minimal usage guidance.

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