get_open_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and safe to retry, mentions authentication via API key, and describes concurrency limits (max 10 concurrent requests). It also outlines the return structure.

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 a clear first sentence, then usage alternatives, authentication/concurrency, parameter explanations, and return info. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers all aspects: purpose, parameters, behavior, usage guidelines, and return format. Given the presence of an output schema described, it is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: campaign_id (example, must be sent), count (range and default), offset (pagination use). This adds meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves per-recipient open data for a sent campaign, specifying what data is included (who opened, when, how many times). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_campaign_report (aggregate open rates) and get_email_activity (all activity types).

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 on when to use this tool (for per-recipient open data) and when not to (use get_campaign_report for aggregate rates, get_email_activity for combined activities). It also mentions authentication via API key and concurrency limits.

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