Campaign status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and scope of the operation. The description adds modest context by indicating the tool can be polled while a campaign runs (suggesting it is non-blocking and safe to call repeatedly). However, it doesn't disclose the return format or any potential latency/best-effort nature of the status check. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 wasted words. The core action ('Poll this while a campaign runs') is front-loaded, and the example statuses add clarity without bloat. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only polling tool with a 100%-covered schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is mostly complete. The only minor gap is not describing the shape of the status response (e.g., possible values beyond 'running or stopped'), but an output schema is absent and the examples suffice for an agent to know what to expect at a glance.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter (campaign_id) adequately. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond implying that the campaign id uniquely identifies the campaign. Per the calibration, baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('status of a campaign by id'), and clarifies the meaning of status with concrete examples ('running or stopped'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like ictbroadcast_campaign_result (which likely retrieves results rather than status) and ictbroadcast_list_campaigns (which lists campaigns rather than checking a single campaign's status).

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Poll this while a campaign runs.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (during campaign execution) and implies it may be called repeatedly. It also naturally excludes using this tool for campaign results or listing, which are handled by the sibling tools.

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