get_campaign_steps_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the analytics are per sequence step and variant, but it does not mention time range, aggregation basis, pagination, sorting, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is not misleading, but it is nearly silent about behavior beyond the obvious data scope.

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 compact and front-loaded with the distinguishing scope, 'per-sequence-step,' and contains no filler words. It loses one point because it is an incomplete fragment without an explicit verb, though it is still very efficient.

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 one-parameter analytics tool, the description gives enough to know the target campaign and the granularity of results. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should clarify what the analytics contain and what 'variant' means so an agent can correctly interpret the result after invocation.

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 only parameter, campaign_id, has just a title. The phrase 'for one campaign' adds the useful meaning that campaign_id identifies the campaign whose step analytics are returned. Since this is a single self-explanatory parameter, the description is minimally adequate, but it provides no format or example.

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 identifies the resource as per-sequence-step and variant analytics for a campaign, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_campaign_analytics. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement with a verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' so it reads more like a label than a full purpose statement.

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 versus alternatives such as get_campaign_analytics, get_campaign, or get_account_analytics. The only contextual hint is 'for one campaign,' which implies a campaign_id is needed, but no selection criteria or exclusion cases are provided.

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