get_campaign_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The 'GET /campaigns/:id/stats' notation indicates a read-only operation, and the listed outputs (counts, engagement rates, top clicked links) describe some behavior. However, it does not disclose response format, error conditions, or whether data is aggregate over all time or a specific period.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the endpoint. Every element earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource, the required identifier, and the specific data returned. Minor gaps like pagination, default time windows, and response shape are not addressed, but the description covers the essentials an agent needs to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema describes the single required parameter 'id' as 'The campaign id,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning, format expectations, or validation details beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as per-campaign analytics and enumerates the returned data: counts, engagement rates, and top clicked links. It distinguishes this from campaign CRUD tools like get_campaign or list_campaigns through the word 'analytics' and the stats endpoint, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_campaign, get_campaign_ab, or list_campaigns. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'per-campaign analytics,' leaving the agent to infer that this is for metrics rather than campaign configuration or details.

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