get_campaign_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey the tool's safety and side effects. The verb 'Get' and the wording 'Returns...' clearly indicate a read-only operation, and the specific metrics listed foreshadow the output. It does not disclose potential errors or rate limits, but for a simple read tool, this level is adequate.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and zero wasted words. Every word 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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema. The description clearly explains what is returned and enumerates the specific counts. No additional context is necessary for an agent to use it 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter (campaign_id) with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status and audience statistics of a campaign'), and enumerates the exact metrics returned (enrolled, active, completed, paused, bounced, failed). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_campaign (broader details) and list_campaigns (listing campaigns).

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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose—retrieving status and audience statistics for a campaign—which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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