Campaign summary

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.