get_campaign_click_details

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication ('Authenticated via API key'), rate limits ('max 10 concurrent requests'), and safety ('Read-only, safe to retry'). It also notes a prerequisite (sent campaign). However, it does not detail error responses or handling of invalid inputs, which would elevate transparency to a 5.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, constraints, Args, Returns, Example). Each sentence adds value, though the opening and the 'Use to analyze...' sentence could be merged for brevity. Overall, it is concise 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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, simple array return), the description is thorough: it explains the purpose, usage context, prerequisites, parameter details, return format with field explanations, and provides an example. The output schema exists but the description adds crucial meaning to the fields. Nothing essential seems missing.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must and does provide full parameter semantics. It explains campaign_id ('The Mailchimp campaign ID... Must be a sent campaign') and count ('Number of URL results to return (1-1000, default 20)'). This compensates entirely for the missing schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve per-link click data for a campaign showing which URLs were clicked and how many times.' It clearly identifies the verb ('Retrieve') and the resource ('per-link click data for a campaign'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_campaign_report and get_email_activity, which are mentioned with specific use cases.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use to analyze which links drove engagement. Use get_campaign_report instead for aggregate totals... Use get_email_activity for per-recipient click timelines.' It also states the tool 'Only works for sent campaigns,' offering clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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