Campaign call results

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

Annotations already carry the safety and openness profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), lowering the bar. The description adds useful return-content context — the four per-call dimensions — and the optional filter, but it does not disclose edge behavior such as empty results for a nonexistent campaign, ordering, or the accepted call-status values. Adequate but not rich.

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?

One compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded ('Per-call results for a campaign') followed by a dense, information-carrying dimension list. Every word earns its place and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 low-complexity tool (2 params, 1 required, no enums, no nested objects) backed by readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns even without an output schema. The notable gap is that the valid values for the 'call status' filter are undocumented in both the schema and the description, which an agent would need to call the tool correctly with filtering.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mildly reinforces the status parameter's meaning by framing it as a filter on call status, which helps distinguish it from campaign-level status, but it adds no value syntax or valid-value information beyond what the schema's minimal descriptions already provide.

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 names a specific resource ('Per-call results for a campaign') and enumerates the data dimensions returned (contact, response, answering-machine detection, DNC). The 'per-call' granularity implicitly differentiates it from the campaign_summary sibling, though it never explicitly disentangles 'call status' filtering from the campaign_status sibling, leaving mild ambiguity.

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 is given on when to select this tool over the three siblings (ictcontact_campaign_summary, ictcontact_list_campaigns, ictcontact_campaign_status). The only usage hint, 'optionally filtered by call status,' is parameter-level guidance rather than tool-selection guidance. Given the potential overlap with campaign_status and campaign_summary, explicit routing would materially help an agent.

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