Campaign status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that responses reflect live state and can be polled, but it says nothing about freshness/staleness, rate limits, or whether polling is throttled — notable gaps given it explicitly instructs polling.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the operational hint. Slightly terse but nothing 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?

For a one-param read tool this is close to adequate: purpose, an example return value, and a usage cue. However, with no output schema to document return shape and no guidance on polling cadence or what other statuses exist, an agent still has gaps to fill.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines campaign_id. The description only echoes 'by id' and adds no format or sourcing guidance, so baseline 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?

States a specific resource (campaign) and the exact facet returned (live status), with an inline example of the values ('running or stopped'). It implies but does not explicitly say how it differs from siblings like ictbroadcast_campaign_summary or ictbroadcast_campaign_result.

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?

'Poll this while a campaign runs' gives a clear triggering context, which is real guidance. But it offers no exclusions or routing — an agent still cannot tell from this text when to prefer campaign_summary or campaign_result instead, which are the ambiguous siblings.

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