sf_campaign_performance

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered. Description adds behavioral detail: the query groups by Type and returns an ROI overview. It consistently notes '[READ-ONLY]'. No contradictions; adds useful context beyond 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, front-loaded with 'INSTRUCTIONS' and key details. Slightly verbose first sentence but overall efficient. Could be slightly tighter, but no fluff.

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?

With no parameters or output schema, the description covers all needed: explains input (none), output structure (list of aggregated metrics), and use cases. Annotations cover safety. Complete for its purpose.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter info because none are needed. Appropriate score.

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 the tool runs aggregate SOQL on Campaign records grouped by Type, listing specific return fields (campaign counts, leads, conversions, costs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_campaign_members (members) and sf_campaigns_by_status (status), making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'marketing dashboard, channel-level performance comparison, or budget allocation analysis.' While it doesn't specify when not to use, the context and sibling list imply alternatives. Slightly missing explicit exclusions, but overall clear guidance.

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