get_daily_performance

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses requirement for BigQuery mode and lists return metrics. However, does not mention whether it is read-only, potential side effects, latency, or rate limits. Partial transparency.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. No superfluous information. Could benefit from more structured formatting for parameters, but overall efficient.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. Does not describe output format structure, parameter details, ordering, or pagination. Required BigQuery mode noted, but insufficient for full operational understanding.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description only partially explains 'group_by' via mention of aggregation by week or month. Other parameters (date_to, team_id, platform, date_from, campaign_id) remain unexplained, adding minimal value beyond the schema's type/enum constraints.

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?

Description clearly states it returns daily performance time series across all campaigns, listing specific metrics and aggregation options. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance by emphasizing 'all campaigns', but could more explicitly distinguish from similar performance tools.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: trend analysis, anomaly detection, week-over-week/month-over-month reporting. However, lacks guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for single campaign analysis where get_campaign_performance might be better) and no alternatives mentioned.

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