List newsletter send history

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description signals a read-only, historical retrieval operation through the words 'List past ... that were sent' and enumerates the returned data. It does not mention ordering or pagination beyond the schema's limit parameter, but the core behavioral context is clear.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource, scope, and output fields without wasting words. Every phrase 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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and what data users can expect. It leaves out ordering/recency details, but the schema covers the limit parameter and the core purpose is fully described.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the optional 'limit' parameter. The input schema provides default/min/max constraints, but the description adds no meaning to help an agent understand pagination or how limit affects results.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it says 'List past newsletter campaigns that were sent' and names the returned fields (subject, sent/failed counts, timestamps). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like send_newsletter or list_newsletter_subscribers.

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 makes the context clear: this tool is for retrieving historical sent campaign information, not for sending newsletters or listing subscribers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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