Check campaign status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned counters, effectively compensating for the absent output schema, but it says nothing about whether counts are real-time or cached, gauge vs absolute meaning (e.g., is 'live' a current count?), or rate limits for polling.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource and returned fields stated immediately, no preamble or filler. The trailing 'and others' is mildly vague but flagging an incomplete list is preferable to silence.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, naming the returned counters is the essential missing piece and it is supplied. Remaining gaps (freshness of counts, behavior for invalid IDs) are modest relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter campaign_id is documented in the schema as the ID returned when the campaign was started. The description contributes no additional semantics such as format, source of the ID, or error behavior for an unknown ID, so the baseline of 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 (get) and resource (campaign) and enumerates the counters returned (made, live, machine, noanswer, linebusy, failed, dnc, optout), which gives an agent a concrete picture of the payload. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling call_status, which is a related but per-call rather than per-campaign view, so a reader must infer the distinction.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. An agent learns nothing about whether this is a polling tool for progress checks, whether it should be preferred over call_status for aggregate counts, or what prerequisites exist beyond the campaign_id.

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