get_child_executions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses return structure (fields, status values), sorting, pagination behavior, error format, and includes a note about undocumented rate limit. This exceeds typical transparency expectations.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and clear sections, front-loading the primary purpose. Slightly verbose with items like 'Rate limit: not explicitly documented' which could be omitted, but overall efficient and organized.

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 the output schema exists, the description still adds value by detailing field meanings (e.g., status values are mixed-case), pagination mechanics, and error handling. No gaps remain for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations.

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?

Parameter explanations add significant meaning beyond the bare schema. For parent_campaign_id, it explains version ID resolution. For page and limit, it provides defaults, maximums, and behavior. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get child executions for a periodic or business-event-triggered campaign.' The verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'child executions' are well-defined, and the conditions (periodic or business-event-triggered) distinguish it from siblings that do not have this specialization.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use: 'only works for PERIODIC and BUSINESS_EVENT_TRIGGERED parent campaigns. Calling it on a ONE_TIME campaign returns no results.' Also notes supported channels (Email and Push only). This provides clear context and exclusion, though no alternatives among siblings are mentioned.

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