Campaign call results

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the read-only nature is already covered by annotations, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful context about the result categories and the optional status filter, though these mostly echo the schema. No destructive behavior or side effects need disclosure.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Per-call results for a campaign') and packs useful qualification into a parenthetical and a short optional clause. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple read-only tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema, this description covers the core purpose, the available filter, and the broad result categories. It could be stronger by explicitly routing to sibling tools or hinting at the response shape, but the category list partially compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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%: campaign_id is documented as 'The campaign id' and status as 'Optional call-status filter.' The description only restates the status filter without adding any new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as returning per-call results for a campaign and enumerates the kinds of data included (contact, response, answering-machine detection, DNC). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'per-call' results, but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', making it slightly less direct than an ideal definition.

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 when the tool would be used (when per-call results are needed, optionally filtered by status), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as ictbroadcast_campaign_summary or ictbroadcast_campaign_status. The distinction is implicit in the word 'per-call', but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.

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