get_mailing_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists the metrics 'sends, errors' but does not state that the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or mention any side effects or prerequisites. The noun-phrase description implies a read operation but does not confirm it.

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 a single short phrase that contains no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the resource (campaign) and key metrics (sends, errors), making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must fully explain the tool's behavior and return values. It only mentions 'sends, errors' without detailing the structure of the statistics, whether the response is a single object or list, or any additional context. The tool is simple, but the description is too scant to be considered complete.

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 only defines a required 'id' of type number with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by indicating that the id corresponds to a campaign ('d'une campagne'), giving some context. However, it does not explicitly map id to a campaign ID or explain any format constraints beyond the 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 'Statistiques d'une campagne (envois, erreurs)' clearly indicates the tool retrieves statistics for a specific mailing campaign, including sends and errors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_mailing by focusing on aggregate stats rather than campaign details, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_mailing or list_mailings. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role solely from its name.

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