Get Campaign Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — that the metrics are scoped to a date range and expressed as ISO 8601 timestamps — but says nothing about result shape (per-campaign breakdown vs. aggregate), row/size limits, or what happens when a campaign ID is invalid or outside the range.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned metrics and the date-range constraint come first. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 five-parameter tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the definition is only minimally sufficient. Because there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return structure (per-campaign rows, metric values, aggregation behavior), and it does not; it also leaves the `type` selection semantics unstated.

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 60%: `from`/`to` and `response_format` are documented in-schema, but `campaign_ids` and the `type` enum carry no schema description. The description partially compensates by naming the four metric kinds that map to the `type` enum and by implying `campaign_ids` accepts multiple campaigns, though it is ambiguous whether all four metric types are returned or `type` selects one — that ambiguity works against the reader.

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 and resource ('Returns ... analytics for one or more campaigns') plus the metrics covered (view/click/link/bounce) and the date-range scoping. It implicitly separates itself from list/get_campaign and get_running_campaign_stats by framing the tool as historical analytics for explicitly supplied campaign IDs, but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives such as listmonk_get_running_campaign_stats or listmonk_get_campaign. An agent must infer from the phrase 'for one or more campaigns over a date range' that this is for post-hoc reporting rather than live stats, with no explicit routing rule.

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