Get Campaign/UTM Data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation and states that it returns aggregated visitor counts and revenue. However, it does not clarify key behaviors such as whether non-UTM traffic is included, how aggregation is structured, or how pagination and date ranges are handled. The description adds context beyond the name but lacks depth.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence precisely states the tool's function, and the second sentence gives a practical use case. Both sentences earn their place, making it compact and informative.

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 tool has 23 parameters and no output schema or annotations, but the schema fully documents parameter usage. The description lacks information about response structure, default time range behavior, or aggregation specifics. It adequately explains the tool's purpose but is insufficiently complete for an agent to understand all runtime behaviors without further assumptions.

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%, and each parameter is documented with meaningful descriptions like 'Filter by UTM source' and pagination details. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it merely repeats the UTM parameter names. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline 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 tool's purpose: getting visitor counts and revenue broken down by UTM campaign parameters (source, medium, campaign, term, content). It specifically identifies the resource (UTM campaign data) and the action (get), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_referrers or get_pages, which focus on other dimensions.

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 clear usage context with 'Great for measuring marketing campaign performance,' which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but because it is the only UTM-focused analytics tool among siblings, the context is sufficient.

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