get_campaign_email_client_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'get' which implies a read operation, but does not state whether it is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. For a tool that likely only reads data, this is minimally acceptable but lacks explicit 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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description does not explain what the returned stats look like (e.g., per client breakdown, counts). While functional, it could be more complete by indicating the output format or structure.

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 schema describes one parameter (campaign_id) with a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and no extra value is added.

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 'Get email client usage stats for a campaign' clearly states the action (get), the resource (email client usage stats), and the scope (for a campaign). It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign_clicks or get_campaign_opens.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implicitly clear that this tool is for email client usage stats, explicit context about when to use it (e.g., 'to see which email clients recipients use') and when not to (e.g., 'for click data, use get_campaign_clicks') is missing.

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