campaign_report

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing the 2/min rate limit and specifying exactly what metrics are returned. It does not contradict the annotations, and the added behavioral detail is useful.

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 three short sentences with no filler: purpose first, output metrics second, rate limit last. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only report tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the main purpose, the returned metric set, and the rate limit. It is slightly incomplete in not guiding the user between similar reporting siblings, but the high schema coverage and clear purpose make the definition sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters, including defaults, precedence, enums, and the required conversion_metric_id. The description adds no per-parameter meaning, but none is needed because the schema carries the load.

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 specific operation (get performance metrics), a specific resource (email campaigns for a Klaviyo account), and lists the concrete metrics returned (opens, clicks, revenue, bounce rate, unsubscribes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like flow_report, segment_report, and form_report.

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 the usage context: retrieve email campaign performance metrics over a time period. It also notes a rate limit, and the schema adds that conversion_metric_id should be obtained from list_metrics first. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer campaign_report over sibling tools like campaign_ab_report or multi_account_summary.

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