mailchimp_reports_get_click_detail

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 only states the read action and does not disclose return format, potential errors, required permissions, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Despite having complete schema coverage for parameters, the description lacks contextual completeness. There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what 'click details' includes or how the response is structured. Additionally, it does not clarify the distinction from the sibling tool mailchimp_reports_get_click_details, leaving the agent uncertain about which to use.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (campaign_id and link_id). The description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('click details'), and the scope ('for a specific link in a campaign'). It distinguishes from vague alternatives by specifying a single link, which aligns with the link_id parameter and differentiates it from the sibling get_click_details (plural) tool.

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 (retrieving click data for one link) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mailchimp_reports_get_click_details or mailchimp_reports_get_open_details. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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