Get Campaign Workflow Counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read' adds nothing. Beyond that it discloses nothing about the return shape (aggregate counts keyed by what?), whether the campaign_id scopes everything, or any cost/pagination behavior — for an openWorldHint tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally good. However the brevity comes at the cost of comprehensibility — 'the roster' and 'workflow counts' are compressed to the point of ambiguity rather than genuine concision.

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?

With 7 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations explaining results, the description should explain what a 'workflow count' contains and how campaign_id interacts with the filters. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to predict the response or understand the required parameter.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load, but it only name-drops five of them (platform, country, source_type, outreach_stage, search) without explaining formats or defaults. The required campaign_id and the has_video flag are not mentioned at all, and the enum values are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Read') and resource ('workflow counts'), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings, but 'workflow counts' and 'the roster' are undefined jargon — an agent cannot tell what is being counted or which tool produces the roster. The scoping phrase 'same platform, country, source, stage and search context' gestures at the resource but never names it.

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 phrase 'as the roster' implies this tool is meant to accompany a roster-listing call, but no sibling is named (list_campaign_creators is the likely one) and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools for obtaining counts are mentioned.

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