Campaign breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the comparative scope and roughly what is returned ('per-campaign statistics across the selected range'), but discloses no auth needs, pagination, or result-size behavior beyond that.

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?

Bold-labeled sections are front-loaded and each sentence carries routing or scope information with no filler. The formatting is slightly heavier than needed for four short lines, but nothing is wasted.

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 analytics tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the call returns, when to choose it, and which sibling to avoid. The main gap is the silent interval parameter, which mildly undercuts completeness for a time-bucketed breakdown.

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 description says nothing about the to/from window or the interval parameter, so the 'Returns: across the selected range' phrasing is the only implicit nod to parameters. With schema coverage at 67% and the interval enum carrying no description, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented portions.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('comparative campaign statistics across the project, broken down for analysis') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, plunk_get_campaign_stats, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

It contains both a 'Not for' exclusion naming the alternative tool and a 'Use when' positive trigger ('comparing campaigns against each other rather than reading one in isolation'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure that earns a top score.

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