Get Campaign Summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool fetches active campaigns and produces a high-level overview, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, potential omissions, or how the summary is shaped beyond the output schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds useful context about active campaigns and account-level overview, though it partly overlaps with 'quick summary' and 'high-level overview.' Overall it is appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 simple read-only summary tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essentials. The main gap is not explicitly routing the agent to sibling tools for detailed reports or raw campaign data, leaving some tool-selection ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description only loosely connects 'recent' to the days parameter and 'active campaigns' to the tool's behavior, adding no additional semantic or formatting details 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get a quick summary of recent campaign performance.' It also clarifies that it covers active campaigns and provides a high-level overview, which distinguishes it from raw campaign listing or detailed reporting. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'quick summary' and 'convenience tool' implies this is for high-level overviews rather than deep analysis. But the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like run_performance_report or get_campaigns. Usage context is implied, not clearly directed.

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