ghl_ad_fb_campaign_reporting_get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the OAuth scope 'adPublishing.readonly' and the endpoint details, which are useful but not critical behavioral traits. It does not disclose error handling, data freshness, or pagination behavior. No contradiction with 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?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured. It starts with the action ('Get campaign reporting'), provides a clear one-line explanation, and then lists the endpoint and OAuth scopes. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 high schema coverage (100%) and no output schema, the description adequately specifies inputs but fails to explain what reporting metrics are returned (e.g., impressions, clicks, spend). This omission leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's output, which is important for a reporting endpoint.

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 4 parameters with descriptions and examples, providing 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Get campaign reporting' and 'Retrieve reporting metrics for a specific Facebook campaign'. The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'reporting metrics for a specific Facebook campaign' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like ghl_ad_fb_campaign_get (which gets campaign details) and ghl_ad_fb_reporting_get (which is likely for broader Facebook reporting).

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for a specific Facebook campaign', but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ghl_ad_fb_reporting_get, ghl_ad_google_campaign_reporting_get, or reporting for ad sets). No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name and endpoint.

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