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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return semantics (link-level total and unique clicks) but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether a campaign with no clicks returns empty. Adequate but not rich for a stats endpoint.

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 tight sentences with the payload description front-loaded and the endpoint appended as reference. Zero wasted text.

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 step in to summarize the return shape (links plus total/unique click counts). That is sufficient for a read-only, single-parameter tool, though pagination behavior is left unstated.

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% and the single campaign_id param is documented in the schema (GUID, sourced from moosend_list_campaigns). The description adds no format or provenance detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('every link in a campaign'), and returned metrics ('total and unique click counts'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like moosend_get_campaign_summary or moosend_get_campaign_activity, which cover different aggregates, without opening the schema.

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 says what the tool returns but never states when to reach for it versus the other campaign-stats siblings (activity, activity_by_location, summary). No preconditions or alternatives are given, leaving selection to inference.

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