fcrm campaign stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the required capability (fcrm_read_emails or fcrm_manage_emails) and the policy (CampaignPolicy::verifyRequest) enforcing it, which is real value for an agent.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the usage framing immediately after. The capability/policy note is somewhat verbose but earns its place as actionable context; nothing is padded.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics, and annotations plus the capability note cover the safety and auth picture. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though return shape/pagination detail is absent.

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 both the required id and the account parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or meaning beyond what the structured fields provide, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get overview statistics for a campaign') and enumerates the metrics returned (sent count, status breakdown, open/click analytics). It differentiates from the fuller status endpoint, though that alternative is not named by its exact sibling identifier (e.g., fcrm_get_campaign).

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?

Frames this as a 'lighter-weight alternative' to the full campaign status endpoint and gives concrete scenarios ('dashboard widgets or summary views'). It implies when to prefer it over the heavier endpoint but does not state explicit exclusions for when not to use it.

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