Campaign recipients by outcome

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are contacts rather than counts, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens for a campaign with no matching recipients.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the filter dimension. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 read-only, cursor-paginated list tool with no output schema and 75% schema coverage, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Only minor gaps remain (paging behavior expectations, whether results are full contact objects).

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 75% and the status enum is fully enumerated in the schema, so parameters are largely self-documenting. The description's list of outcomes restates the enum rather than adding format or semantics beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (contacts) scoped by campaign engagement outcome, which clearly separates it from siblings like list_contacts and campaign_report. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the outcome-filtering framing is distinctive enough for selection.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as campaign_report (aggregate stats) or list_contacts (unfiltered). The only hint at usage is the enumerated statuses, which is implied context rather than stated guidance.

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