Campaign call results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds useful content about what each record contains (contact, response, AMD, DNC), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or truncation — relevant since per-call data for a campaign can be large.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical field list is the only elaboration and it earns its place. Slightly dense phrasing ('per-call results') rather than a clean verb, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Only two simple parameters and no nested objects, so the surface area is small and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema, the description is the only place to convey return shape and any limits on volume, and it only lists four example fields without stating whether results are paginated or bounded.

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 are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that status is an optional call-status filter but adds no allowed values, format, or default beyond what the schema states.

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 resource and scope — per-call results for a campaign — and enumerates the returned fields (contact, response, answering-machine detection, DNC), which clearly separates it from a campaign-level summary or status check. It never names the sibling tools (campaign_status, campaign_summary, list_campaigns), so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by call status' implies when the status parameter matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to the alternatives. An agent must infer from the field list that this is the drill-down tool versus campaign_summary.

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