getXTPerformanceReport

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a read-style report operation and lists the categories of data returned, which is useful. Still, it does not explain whether the report is computed live or cached, how the optional date range impacts the report, or what happens when no data exists.

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 clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, activity type, and report contents are all present, and every word adds value.

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 simple two-parameter tool this is reasonably complete: it explains the purpose, resource, and high-level return contents. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could have added more precision about report fields or date-range behavior, which is a small but real gap.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score 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?

States the specific operation (get), the exact resource (performance report), and the target activity type (Experience Targeting/XT). The mention of metrics, conversions, and visitor data further distinguishes it from sibling report tools such as getABPerformanceReport, getAPTPerformanceReport, and getXTOrdersReport.

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 phrase 'for an Experience Targeting (XT) activity' provides a clear condition for when to use this tool, and sibling names make alternatives apparent. However, it does not explicitly call out when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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