compare_campaign_variants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only (comparison) but does not disclose if it has side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. It mentions requiring a previously executed campaign in the parameter description, but the main description lacks behavioral detail.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently conveys the relationship to get_campaign_report.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essentials: what it does, its outputs, and its relation to a sibling. It is sufficient for an agent to use correctly, though a note on error handling would improve completeness.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining the campaign_name must refer to a campaign already executed with run_campaign. This context beyond the schema definition helps the agent understand the prerequisite.

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 does paired A/B comparison of campaign variants, listing key outputs (winner, lift, significance). It distinguishes itself from get_campaign_report by noting it's a subset for quick checks, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly positions this tool as a subset of get_campaign_report for quick checks, implying when to use it versus the full report. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios beyond that one sibling.

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