Launch health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-dependency posture are covered. The description adds the connected-account requirement, which is useful, but leaves the key behavioral question unanswered: where the 'stated thresholds' come from (house rules? per-campaign config?) and what happens when no threshold exists.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the returned metrics and waste little space. The trailing 'Needs a connected account' sentence is a slightly tacked-on prerequisite but still earns its place as actionable information.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is serviceable but incomplete: it omits the format and source of thresholds, the time window implied by 'recent,' and the accepted form of name_or_id. None of these gaps are fatal, but an agent would need trial and error on the required identifier.

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 coverage is only 50%: platform has both an enum and a description, while name_or_id has neither in the schema nor any explanation in the description. An agent cannot tell from either source whether name_or_id accepts a campaign name, a journey name, a numeric ID, or a URL, which is a meaningful gap for a required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb-like outcome (delivery numbers judged against thresholds) and enumerates the metrics covered (sent, delivered, bounces, unsubscribes, spam complaints, opens, clicks). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like check_campaign, check_message, or check_email, which plausibly cover overlapping ground.

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 only conditional guidance is 'Needs a connected account,' which is a prerequisite, not a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to pick this over check_campaign or check_message, and no exclusions or routing hints despite a crowded sibling set.

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