get_campaign_statistics

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 the tool retrieves statistics but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'detailed campaign statistics' includes, how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like pagination handling. For a data retrieval tool with multiple filters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying filtering capabilities ('optional filters'), but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema, such as how filters combine or typical use cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('campaign statistics') with a qualifier ('detailed'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_campaign_analytics' or 'get_campaign_analytics_by_date', leaving ambiguity about what specific statistics are retrieved or how this differs from other analytics tools.

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 mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_campaign_analytics'. There's no explicit mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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