get_open_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. Description adds context on pagination (count, offset) and return structure, but does not mention any additional behavioral constraints like rate limits or permissions. No contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and sibling references, followed by a clear Args section. Each sentence serves a purpose; no fluff. Well-organized and appropriately sized.

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?

With output schema existing, description doesn't need to detail return values, but it includes a helpful returns summary. Covers usage, parameters, and state constraints. Missing description of the 'account' parameter is a minor gap, but overall complete for a read-only paginated tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains campaign_id (with example and constraint), count (range and default), and offset (pagination usage). However, the 'account' parameter is left undocumented, leaving a gap. Overall, adds significant meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'retrieve', resource 'per-recipient open data', and scope 'for a sent campaign'. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_campaign_report and get_email_activity, providing clear differentiation.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use vs alternatives: 'Use get_campaign_report for aggregate open rates. Use get_email_activity for all activity types combined.' Also states prerequisite: 'Must be a sent campaign.'

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