get_campaign_summary

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 states 'Read-only,' which is valuable and correct, and it lists the metrics returned. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, whether the campaign must exist, error behavior, or the format of the totals (e.g., counts versus percentages). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

Two short sentences (plus one fragment) with zero filler. The purpose and the returned metrics are front-loaded, and the read-only safety note follows immediately. Every element earns its place.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, the metrics returned, read-only status, and the underlying SOAP operation. However, for a tool with zero structured-field support, it omits operational details an agent may need: how to obtain the campaign ID, error handling, and whether results are live or cached. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description specifies 'one campaign,' which clarifies that iCampaignID identifies a single campaign and that exactly one ID is expected. It also gives the SOAP operation name GetCampaignResultSummary, which helps an agent mapping to the underlying API. It does not, however, clarify the ID format or source (e.g., obtained from list_campaigns).

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 names a clear verb-resource pair (get summary of one campaign) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: sent, opened, clicked, bounced. This distinguishes it well from siblings like get_campaign_details, which implies metadata rather than aggregate performance metrics. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with 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 scope is implied: this returns totals for one campaign, so an agent can infer it's for aggregate performance summaries rather than detailed campaign settings or individual link clicks. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_campaign_results_by_date, and no prerequisites stated. This is the minimum viable level.

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