ghl_ad_li_campaign_group_reporting_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds endpoint details (GET, version header, OAuth scopes), confirming safe, read-only behavior. However, no mention of rate limits, error handling, or response format.

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 (two sentences plus technical details). It is front-loaded with purpose. The version header and source file reference add minor noise but overall structure is clean.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not mention the response format or that the 'fields' parameter controls which metrics are returned. For a reporting tool, this is a gap; however, the description is adequate for basic invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only references campaignGroupId in the endpoint without adding new semantics. Other parameters are well-described in the schema, but the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('get campaign group reporting' and 'retrieve reporting metrics'), the specific resource ('LinkedIn campaign group'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_ad_li_campaign_group_get (which likely retrieves details, not metrics).

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool over other reporting tools (e.g., ghl_ad_li_reporting_get) or indicate prerequisites. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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