Analyze Campaign Performance & ROAS

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the nature of the output (diagnostic labels and recommendations) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, nor mention prerequisites such as whether the campaign must already exist. 'Analyzes' implies non-mutation, but the absence of an explicit safety statement leaves some ambiguity.

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?

One compact sentence that leads with the action, lists the metrics analyzed, and specifies the diagnostic outputs. There is no filler or redundancy; every clause adds useful information.

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?

For a low-complexity, one-parameter tool, the description covers what analysis is performed and what the output will contain (assessments and recommendations). However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could also clarify whether the raw metric values are returned and explicitly state that the operation is read-only. Still, the core information an agent needs to call and interpret the tool is present.

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 100% and the single parameter campaign_id is documented as 'The campaign ID to evaluate'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Analyzes campaign metrics') and a specific output ('diagnostic assessments' with enumerated labels like STRONG, MODERATE, NEEDS_ATTENTION, plus optimization recommendations). It distinguishes itself from sibling getters like get_campaign by emphasizing analysis and recommendations rather than raw retrieval. Minor gap: the title promises ROAS but the description never mentions revenue or ROAS.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no sibling alternatives are named. The wording implies use for performance evaluation and optimization planning, but an agent cannot tell from the description when to choose this over get_delivery_insights or detect_spend_anomalies.

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