get_campaign_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape at a high level (aggregate metrics broken down by provider, mailbox, sentiment), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, caching, or result size limits. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 tight sentences: what it returns, when to use, when not to use. The identifying scope is front-loaded and every sentence carries routing or return information with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by stating the breakdown dimensions and that results are aggregate metrics. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing; only finer-grained return detail (limits, ordering) 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?

Only one parameter (days) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the allowed values 7/30/90 already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or format guidance beyond that, so this is the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource and scope: a multi-dimensional performance breakdown by provider, mailbox, and sentiment. It goes further by naming the two sibling tools it is not (get_campaign_stats, get_overview), so an agent can disambiguate without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'USE THIS to diagnose deliverability issues across providers or compare mailbox performance,' followed by two 'DO NOT use' exclusions with the correct alternatives named for each. When/when-not/alternative are all covered.

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