Campaign summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover mutation risk. It adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the aggregate categories and the optional user-id scope, but leaves the full set of returned metrics open-ended with 'and so on.'

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 the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant phrasing. The phrase 'and so on' is slightly vague but keeps the description compact.

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 two-parameter read-only summary, the essential invocation context is present, and the optional scope is clearly stated. However, there is no output schema and the description's 'and so on' leaves the exact returned fields unspecified, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the response shape.

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%, with both campaign_id and usr_id already documented. The description reinforces the optional user scoping but adds no new constraints, formats, or meanings beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource ('a campaign') and the kind of result ('totals... answered, failed, human vs machine'), which distinguishes it from siblings like ictbroadcast_campaign_status or ictbroadcast_list_campaigns. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' so it falls just short of top-tier clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to select this tool over siblings; the description only states what totals are available and mentions optional scoping. It does not name alternatives or give exclusion criteria, leaving the choice to inference from the tool name.

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