reach_getCampaignPerformanceV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: counts are unique contacts rather than raw events, which is critical for interpreting metrics. It also lists the specific metrics returned. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation (though the name 'get' implies it) or any potential side effects, but for a read operation this is acceptable.

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 front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence and adds a crucial clarification in the second. No wasted words, and the structure is clear.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what metrics are returned and the unique-contact counting behavior. It could mention the time range or any filtering, but that is not required for a basic performance retrieval. The lack of output schema means the description should hint at return structure, which it does by listing metrics.

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 (profileUuid and campaignUuid) are documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the schema descriptions are sufficient. The description implies the campaignUuid identifies the campaign, which is already clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves campaign performance metrics (delivery, opens, clicks, unsubscribes) with rates, and specifies it operates on a single campaign. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reach_getCampaignDetailsV1 (which likely provides broader campaign info) and reach_listCampaignsV1 (which lists campaigns), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies usage for retrieving performance metrics for a specific campaign, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus reach_getCampaignDetailsV1 or other reach tools. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the agent must infer from the tool name and context.

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