get_campaign_stats

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at the output structure (replies, conversions, channel breakdowns) and implies a read operation, but it does not clarify whether the campaign must be active, if there are rate limits, or what happens on error. The examples provide some insight but leave significant gaps.

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 sentence with examples in parentheses, making it short and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, adding a second sentence about expected return format or usage context would improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and sample statistics but lacks crucial details such as the exact return structure, behavior on invalid campaignId, security requirements, or error handling. It leaves the agent with significant unknowns for proper 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?

The only parameter, campaignId, has a schema description of 'The campaign ID', which already covers its meaning. The tool description does not add any further context (e.g., format, required state). With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description fails to elevate beyond that.

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 engagement statistics') and specifies the resource ('for a campaign') with examples of the statistics provided (replies, conversions, channel breakdowns). While it distinguishes from siblings like get_campaigns and get_campaign, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling get_campaign_leads_stats, which may cause ambiguity.

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 the tool should be used when campaign-level engagement metrics are needed, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., get_campaign_leads_stats) or any prerequisites (e.g., campaign must exist, access rights). The usage context is only implied.

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