get_pacing_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It details the output fields and thresholds, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. The behavior is adequately described for a read-only report.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It then lists output fields, thresholds, sorting order, and the BigQuery requirement. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical. Minor improvement could be achieved with bullet points.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description should provide comprehensive guidance. While it explains the output well, it fails to describe the input parameters. The tool has 4 parameters, all undocumented, making it incomplete for effective use.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters: team_id, platform, funnel_stage, pacing_status. Despite the schema having enums for two parameters, the description offers no guidance on how to use these filters. This is a critical 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 returns budget pacing status for campaigns that have started flying. It specifies the metrics: expected vs actual spend, required daily spend, projected total spend, and a pacing_status label. It also explains the thresholds for over/under pacing and sorting order, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_monthly_budget_pacing.

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.' However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_monthly_budget_pacing or get_campaign_performance. The usage context is implied but not exclusive.

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