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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds useful context about result content and filtering, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or response format.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core resource, then adds relevant result fields and the filtering option. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no nested objects, the description adequately conveys what results are returned and how they can be filtered. Adding pagination or limits would improve completeness, but the tool is simple and well-scoped.

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 campaign_id and status are already documented. The description only reiterates the optional status filter without adding new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific resource (per-call results for a campaign) and enumerates the data categories included: contact, response, answering-machine detection, and DNC. This granularity distinguishes it from sibling tools like campaign_status and campaign_summary.

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 phrase 'per-call results' implies use when individual call outcomes are needed, and the optional call-status filter gives context. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer campaign_summary or campaign_status instead.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by framing the tool as a live, pollable status endpoint. It also gives concrete example values (running or stopped), which helps the agent anticipate evolving responses.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core meaning is front-loaded, and the polling instruction is a distinct, useful addition.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with annotations already covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It gives usage context and example status values, though it does not describe the exact output shape since no output schema is provided.

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?

The single parameter campaign_id is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. The phrase "by id" reinforces the parameter's role but does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 returns a live status of a campaign by id, with examples like running or stopped. It distinguishes this from sibling tools such as ictdialer_campaign_summary and ictdialer_campaign_result by emphasizing live, pollable status.

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?

"Poll this while a campaign runs" provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the live-status wording and sibling tool names make the intended usage clear.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that this is an aggregated summary and can be scoped by user, but it does not clarify what 'and so on' includes or what the response structure looks like. This is acceptable 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?

Two short sentences, with the main purpose first and the optional filter second. There is no redundant phrasing, and each sentence contributes useful 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 shoulders the burden of explaining what the agent will receive. It lists some categories but relies on 'and so on' and does not describe time scope, response shape, or whether all totals are returned at once. Annotations cover read-only safety but not this missing return context.

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 campaign_id and usr_id are already documented. The description only restates that usr_id is optional and scopes the summary, adding no format, constraints, or behavior beyond the schema.

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 that the tool returns totals for a campaign and names concrete categories (answered, failed, human vs machine). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling summary/status/result tools, but the resource and aggregation intent are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools like ictdialer_campaign_status or ictdialer_campaign_result. The only usage hint is the optional agent/user scoping, which does not help an agent choose between alternatives.

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

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 the meaningful behavior that it returns only id and name for each outbound campaign, which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional 'Start here' guidance earns its place by helping an agent understand the workflow.

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 no-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what is listed, what fields are returned, and the role this tool plays relative to sibling tools.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics beyond the empty schema. With no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing missing.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('outbound campaigns on the ICTDialer server'), and specifies the return contents ('id and name of each'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the entry point for finding a campaign id.

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 phrase 'Start here to find a campaign id' gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool first. It does not explicitly describe when to use the sibling tools, but the implication is clear that those require an id obtained from this list.

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