Campaign call results

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.