get_campaign_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, and fails to describe the effect of the 'daily' flag, filter behaviors, or any output format. The description simply repeats the action without revealing side effects, data granularity, or other important behavior that an agent would need to anticipate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff. While it could include more detail, the efficiency and clarity of the sentence justify a high score.

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 lack of an output schema and several optional parameters that materially change the result (daily breakdown, filters), the description is incomplete. An agent cannot know what the report will actually contain, how filters interact, or what the daily flag changes. The description leaves too much to inference; a more complete description would mention the response shape or the significance of these options.

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%, so parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, but it does mention 'within a date range' which maps to the from/to parameters, reinforcing their role. This is adequate given the schema's completeness, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('message delivery reports') scoped to campaigns within a date range. It accurately conveys the tool's core function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_realtime_counts, which could also relate to delivery metrics. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as get_realtime_counts or get_profile_count exist, but no exclusions or conditions are mentioned. The only implicit context is that it's campaign-specific, but the agent must infer that from the name and description alone.

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