Campaign status and metrics

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is present, and the description's 'Summarizes' is consistent with a read-only operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation—such as data freshness, aggregation timeframe, or whether the summary is real-time. With the annotation covering safety, the description contributes little extra behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs specific, useful information without any fluff or repetition. Every phrase contributes meaning, and it is easily scannable.

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 parameterless summary tool with no output schema, the description clearly enumerates the main content areas (target progress, pipeline health, tier distribution, rejection reasons). This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool provides. It does not detail return format, but that is less critical for a summary tool and no output schema exists to supplement.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description properly focuses on what the tool returns rather than input semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Summarizes' and clearly identifies the resource: progress toward the application target, pipeline health, tier distribution, and rejection reasons. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_applications or audit_log, which focus on listing individual items rather than providing an aggregate overview.

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 implies a high-level, summary-style use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, leaving the agent to infer its role from the word 'Summarizes'.

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