get_campaign_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication method (API key), rate limit (max 10 concurrent requests), and idempotency (read-only, safe to retry). It also specifies a precondition (campaign must be sent). Minor missing detail on error handling, but overall good.

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?

Concise and well-structured. First sentence states purpose, then usage alternatives, then behavioral traits, then formal Args/Returns sections. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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 a single parameter and existence of an output schema (though not shown), the description provides sufficient context: lists return fields, prerequisites, and usage. It is complete for a simple read tool, though could mention response size or error behavior.

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 single parameter campaign_id has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds format example ('abc123def4'), precondition ('Must be sent'), and source ('Obtain from list_campaigns(status="sent")'). This greatly enriches the parameter meaning.

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 retrieves aggregate performance metrics (opens, clicks, bounces, benchmarks) for a sent campaign. It uses specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'aggregate performance metrics', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_campaign_click_details and get_open_details.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: recommends sibling tools for per-link data, per-recipient opens, and delivery status. Also notes constraint: 'Only works for sent campaigns'. This directly helps the agent choose the right tool.

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