Geographic performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds location scoping and the gaql_search companion step, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as response shape, pagination, or metric definitions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a useful pointer to gaql_search. Every clause contributes meaning.

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?

The description is sufficient to recognize the tool as a location-based performance report and to know how to resolve constants. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not enumerate which metrics are returned or the response structure, leaving an agent somewhat blind to call results.

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 83%, so most parameters are already documented. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning geo target constants, and it does not clarify how those constants relate to the listed input properties. The undocumented campaign_id parameter is not addressed.

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 identifies this as a location-based performance metrics tool: 'Metrics by user location for a date range' and names country/region/city geo target constants. This distinguishes it from sibling reports like campaign_performance or keyword_performance, though it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'get' or 'return'.

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 usage context is implied: use this when geographic/location-based performance metrics are needed. It also gives a practical pointer to gaql_search for resolving geo target constant names. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling reporting tools or what scenarios are not appropriate.

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