growsurf_get_campaign_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds context beyond annotations: the 'when applicable' qualifier for affiliate metrics, the email data breakdown (sent, delivered, etc.), and the default timeframe behavior. This provides behavioral insight without repeating safety annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the main purpose, then methodically covers key parameters and their semantics. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core function and flows logically.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers all optional parameters, default behaviors, and special cases (e.g., email metrics with windows). It is complete for an analytics tool, giving an agent everything needed to make an informed call.

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 description significantly expands on the schema: it explains that interval adds a per-period series, enumerates the include values and their effects (especially email detail), specifies days default (365) and max (1825), and clarifies the interaction of startDate/endDate and the fallback to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID. This covers even the undocumented 'days' parameter, making the description highly informative 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 clearly states it fetches analytics for the GrowSurf program, enumerating specific metrics (participants, referrals, impressions, shares, revenue, etc.). It uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and names the resource, which distinguishes it from siblings like growsurf_get_campaign (campaign settings) and growsurf_get_participant_analytics (per-participant data).

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 explicit guidance on how to use optional parameters: interval for series, include for optional data, days/startDate/endDate for timeframe, and campaignId targeting. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get_campaign, though the purpose clarity makes that inferable. The guidance on parameter combinations (e.g., combining email with previousPeriod) is valuable.

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