Campaign summary

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 useful content by enumerating the metric categories returned, but says nothing about whether the totals cover the campaign's full lifetime or a window, nor about auth or rate-limit behavior on the external system implied by openWorldHint.

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 resource and its metrics front-loaded, and no wasted preamble. The trailing 'and so on' is slightly imprecise but does signal a non-exhaustive list.

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 tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it only lists sample metric names without stating the aggregation window or response structure. It is callable from what is given, but leaves real ambiguity about what the totals represent.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description merely restates the optional usr_id scoping already present in the schema and adds no format or edge-case detail.

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?

It states concretely that the tool returns aggregated totals for a campaign and names sample metrics (answered, failed, human vs machine), which is more specific than a bare restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like ictbroadcast_campaign_result or ictbroadcast_campaign_status, which sound like overlapping views of the same campaign.

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?

'Optionally scope to one agent/user id' gives a hint about a narrow use case, so usage is implied rather than explicit. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the result/status siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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