get_campaign_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what the output format looks like (e.g., summary metrics). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get') and resource ('campaign analytics summary'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose.

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 the complexity of analytics tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'top-level' entails (e.g., key metrics like opens, clicks), how the data is structured, or any limitations (e.g., date ranges, aggregation). For a tool that likely returns detailed data, this leaves the agent under-informed about what to expect.

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% description coverage, with the single parameter 'campaign_id' documented as 'Campaign ID'. The description adds no additional semantic context about this parameter, such as where to find the ID or valid ranges. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Get top-level campaign analytics summary' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('campaign analytics summary'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'get_campaign_analytics_by_date' or 'get_campaign_statistics', which likely provide similar analytics with different scopes or details.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_campaign_analytics_by_date' or 'get_campaign_statistics'. It lacks context about what 'top-level' means or when this summary is preferred over more detailed analytics, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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