sellfox_ads_sb_campaign_hourly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, the description is only a brief label and lacks any details about behavior such as output format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the report is read-only. The agent receives no information about what the report contains or any side effects, making the tool opaque.

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 a single, concise sentence that quickly communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. However, it could be slightly more structured to include key details, but given the brevity, a score of 4 is justified.

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?

Given that the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what data the report includes (e.g., metrics, dimensions) and any constraints (e.g., date range). Instead, it only states the report type. For a data retrieval tool, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's functionality and return value.

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 input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (shopId, campaignId, reportDate), so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, so this score 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 '小时报告-SB广告活动报告' clearly identifies the tool as generating hourly reports for SB (Sponsored Brands) campaigns. The inclusion of 'SB' distinguishes it from sibling tools for Sponsored Products (SP) and Sponsored Display (SD), and 'campaign' differentiates it from ad group and target-level reports. Although no verb is used, '报告' implies report generation, and the purpose is unambiguous given the context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling hourly report tools for different ad types and levels (e.g., sellfox_ads_sb_ad_group_hourly, sellfox_ads_sp_campaign_hourly), but the description does not explain the specific scenario for using this one, such as when an aggregate campaign-level hourly view is needed. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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