get_performance_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits but only states the core function and scope constraint. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what data is included, how date ranges are handled, or any limits/return format. The scope_id requirement is the only behavioral detail, which is insufficient.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide the essential parameter note. No irrelevant information or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Despite being a 4-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal. It omits date range semantics, return structure, when to use vs siblings, and any operational constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool in all contexts.

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?

The description adds meaning for scope and scope_id by enumerating allowed values and indicating when scope_id is required. However, it does not explain date_range_start/end at all, leaving their format and purpose ambiguous. With 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation is helpful but incomplete.

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 states 'Aggregate metrics + trend direction,' which clearly identifies the tool's function as summarizing performance metrics with trend analysis. The scope options provide additional clarity on the resource types it covers, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like top_performers or detect_trending_formats.

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 provides parameter usage guidance (scope values, scope_id requirement) but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of top_performers, detect_trending_formats, or other sibling tools, nor any exclusions or preferred contexts.

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