cm_get_campaign_opens

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that results are paged and contain timestamps and geolocation, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose additional traits like date filtering behavior or whether results are sorted by default. It adds moderate value beyond the annotation.

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 a single sentence that immediately communicates the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes key qualifiers ('paged', 'with timestamps and geolocation').

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?

Given six parameters and no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning paging and data fields. However, it omits important context such as the date parameter's 'added/changed since' semantics, the orderfield/orderdirection options, and the default pagesize. The description is adequate but not thorough for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, explaining all six parameters clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions high-level output fields (timestamps, geolocation). With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'campaign opens', and specifies that results are paged and include timestamps and geolocation. This distinguishes it from siblings like cm_get_campaign_bounces or cm_get_campaign_clicks, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cm_get_campaign_summary or cm_get_campaign_recipients). There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor any mention of prerequisites or context for selecting this tool among many similar get_* tools.

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