geo_performance

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the read-only nature is already covered by annotations. The description adds value by explaining the semantic distinction between actual and targeted location and why that matters for interpretation, without contradicting the 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 sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core definition and followed by a meaningful illustrative contrast. Every phrase earns its place and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 core concept and differentiator are fully explained, and the presence of an output schema covers return value structure. However, the complete lack of parameter guidance leaves a practical gap for invocation, especially given 7 parameters and no enum constraints.

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 information about parameters such as level, date_range, limit, or campaign_id. It offers only high-level conceptual context, leaving the agent to infer valid values and formats from parameter names and defaults alone.

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 defines what the tool reports: performance by the geographic location a user actually was in or searched from, contrasting it with targeted geography. It answers the specific question 'is this converting where I think it is', making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from targeting-related concepts.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when actual user location matters rather than targeted location. It explicitly says targeting alone cannot answer the question, providing a strong selection signal, though it does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative.

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