mailchimp_reports_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but provides no detail on pagination (count/offset), response format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely returns a list with optional filters.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, its brevity veers toward under-specification, but for a simple read tool it is appropriately concise.

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?

The description is too thin for a list tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema. It does not mention that the tool supports filtering by type or send time, nor does it clarify that it returns a list of reports. The schema provides parameter details, but the description fails to orient the agent on the tool's scope and return behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all five parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. The filtering options are fully documented in the schema, so no additional compensation is needed.

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') and resource ('campaign reports') with a singular intent. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like mailchimp_reports_get, which also retrieves campaign report data, so it does not fully distinguish between listing and retrieving a specific report.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for listing multiple reports, nor does it reference mailchimp_reports_get for individual report retrieval. Users are left to infer usage 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.