get_campaign_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: results are ordered 'newest first' and conversions are constrained to a 'same-day' attribution window. It stops short of stating the read-only nature explicitly or covering result limits/pagination, but the ordering and metric-window disclosures are meaningful beyond structured data.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the metric definition front-loaded and the parameter behavior trailing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key unknowns: what is returned, ordering, the attribution window, and the source of campaign identifiers. Only secondary details such as time-range scoping or result limits are absent.

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 the description must compensate, and it does: the single 'campaign' parameter is explained as optional with the semantics of omission ('Omit campaign for all') and its valid values tied to create_tracked_link output. It adds no format/syntax detail for the string value, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get campaign results) plus the exact metrics returned (traffic and same-day conversions) and the data source, tying it to the sibling create_tracked_link. An agent can distinguish it from list_events, get_overview, or top_sources without opening a schema.

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 tells the agent how to retrieve everything ('Omit campaign for all') and anchors the tool to campaigns created via create_tracked_link. It does not, however, contrast this with metric-adjacent siblings like get_overview or top_sources, so the when-not case is only partially covered.

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