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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about the kind of totals returned (answered, failed, human vs machine), but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like incomplete data or refresh timing. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds moderate context, not more.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It leads with the core purpose ('Totals for a campaign'), gives concrete examples, and closes with the optional scoping. No filler words; every element contributes to understanding.

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 tool, the description is mostly complete: it explains the output nature, lists sample fields, and clarifies the optional scoping. The absence of an output schema is somewhat mitigated by the example fields. It could be more explicit that omitting usr_id returns campaign-wide totals, but that is reasonably implied by the word 'Optionally.'

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% for both parameters, with clear descriptions for campaign_id ('The campaign id') and usr_id ('Optional agent/user id to scope the summary'). The description's 'Optionally scope to one agent/user id' restates the schema's optionality without adding new semantic depth. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the burden.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing totals for a campaign, with specific examples ('answered, failed, human vs machine'). It identifies the resource (campaign) and the aggregate nature, which distinguishes it from siblings like ictcontact_list_campaigns or ictcontact_campaign_status. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast the siblings, so some inference is required.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'Optionally scope to one agent/user id' hints at a use case but doesn't say 'use this for aggregate totals' or 'use campaign_result for individual records.' The description stops at stating what it does without routing the agent relative to siblings.

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