Get campaign and broadcast analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a partial-failure mode where one half still returns and failedSections names the missing section, which is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the failure behavior, then a concrete invocation example. Every sentence carries information, with only mild overlap against the schema's own default-limit note.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description still flags the failedSections field for degraded responses. Scope, default behavior, and invocation are all covered; the only real gap is routing against sibling analytics tools.

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 workspaceId, campaignLimit, and workspaceSlug, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only reinforces the default limit and gives a concrete example ({ campaignLimit: 3 }), adding marginal value over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (roll up) and the two resources combined (per-campaign analytics for up to 5 recent campaigns plus recent broadcasts), so an agent knows the scope is a combined rollup. However, it never names or contrasts with the close sibling luca_campaigns_analytics, which also returns campaign performance, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'roll up' framing and the example invocation, giving a sense of what the tool is for. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as luca_campaigns_analytics or luca_broadcasts_list, despite many overlapping analytics siblings.

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