get_campaign_summary

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and closed-world, and the description adds useful context: the data is local/recorded, it does not check X, and it does not send work. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover auth, rate limits, or other operational details.

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, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by an important behavioral boundary. Every sentence adds relevant information without waste.

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?

Output schema and annotations are present, so return values and safety profile need not be explained. However, with two required parameters and no parameter semantics in either the schema or description, the definition is incomplete for invocation guidance.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either required parameter. It does not clarify what 'account' represents or what format 'campaign_id' should take, leaving parameter meaning entirely to the bare schema titles.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read local membership/delivery counts and opt-out suppression count.' It clearly distinguishes the recorded-outcome nature from tools that check X or send work, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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 description gives a when-not boundary by saying it never checks X or sends work, which implies use for local recorded outcomes. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings like get_campaign, list_campaigns, or get_metrics.

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