Campaign call results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what each record contains, but for a per-call result set it omits volume/pagination expectations (a campaign can have thousands of rows) and whether results are capped or truncated.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and uses a compact parenthetical to list returned data. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return fields, which is the main gap it needed to fill. It is still incomplete for a potentially high-volume listing tool: no pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior is mentioned.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only restates the optional status filter and adds no value about allowed status values (no enum present) or behavior when status is omitted. 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 (per-call results for a campaign) and enumerates the returned fields (contact, response, answering-machine detection, DNC), which is far more informative than the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the campaign_status or campaign_summary siblings, leaving the agent to infer that this is the row-level vs. aggregate view.

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 filtered by call status" implies a usage context, but the description never says when to choose this over ictcontact_campaign_summary or ictcontact_campaign_status, nor any prerequisites (campaign must exist, must have run). Usage is inferable only from the resource name.

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