get_geo_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing about side effects, data returned, or operational constraints. This is a complete absence of transparency.

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 brief, but this is under-specification rather than concise writing. It consists of two words that convey no operational information, so it fails to earn its place. A 2 is appropriate because it is at least short, but not because it is effective.

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 the tool has a parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what geographic performance means, what data is returned, or how the 'days' parameter affects results. The agent has no useful information to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and the description does not mention the 'days' parameter at all. The schema only provides a default of 30 but no meaning, and the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's purpose completely undocumented.

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 'Geographic performance' is a vague label that fails to state what the tool does, what resource it acts on, or what action it performs. It provides no verb and no differentiation from sibling performance tools like get_campaign_performance or get_ad_performance, so an agent cannot infer its function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent without any basis for selection.

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