Campaign summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is aggregate counts across several dimensions, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about date windows, freshness of the totals, or what happens for a campaign with no calls.

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 clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the optional scoping. No wasted words, though 'and so on' is a vague filler that could have been replaced by naming the remaining metrics or omitted.

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 with full schema coverage and a safety-covering annotation set, the description is largely sufficient, but with three closely related sibling tools a single sentence about how the totals differ from per-call results would materially improve correct selection.

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% — both usr_id and campaign_id are documented in the schema, including that usr_id is optional. The description's restatement of the optional scoping adds no syntax or format detail, so the 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 (a campaign) and the kind of data returned (totals: answered, failed, human vs machine), which is more informative than the title 'Campaign summary'. It is distinguishable from siblings like campaign_status or campaign_result by framing itself as aggregate totals, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only usage hint is the optional agent/user scoping clause; there is no statement of when to choose this over ictcontact_campaign_result or ictcontact_campaign_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the routing decision from the tool names alone.

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