Campaign stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (counts and rates) and by clarifying that bounce/complaint counts are aggregates whose underlying addresses require a different tool. It does not mention auth or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Bolded labeled sections (Purpose / Not for / Returns / Use when / Note) front-load the essential purpose and make routing information scannable. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 compensates by naming the returned metrics and their form (counts and rates). Combined with the sibling routing and the recipient-count caveat, an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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 the single 'id' parameter ('Campaign UUID'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb+resource (delivery/engagement figures for one campaign) and enumerates the exact metrics returned (sends, opens, clicks, bounces, complaints). It explicitly distinguishes itself from plunk_get_campaign and plunk_get_top_campaigns by name.

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?

Contains both a 'Not for' clause naming the correct alternatives and their domains, and a 'Use when' clause keyed to the user intent ('how a specific campaign performed'). Also routes to plunk_list_campaign_recipients for recipient-level detail. Nothing is left to inference.

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