get_campaign_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details parameter constraints (paired dates, format) and error conditions (ToolError for invalid inputs). It does not mention potential side effects or performance, but as a read-only analytics tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 well-structured with separate sections for parameters, rules, examples, and returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (date rules repeated), but overall it is clear and informative.

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 tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description covers usage, parameter constraints, examples, errors, and return structure comprehensively. It leaves little ambiguity for an AI agent.

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%, but the description compensates fully. It explains the campaign_id prefix, date format (ISO 8601), the rule that both dates must be provided together or omitted, and invalid empty strings. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/title.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a comprehensive analytics summary for a specific campaign, detailing included metrics like validations, redemptions, and publications. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_campaign (basic info) and list_campaigns (listing).

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 provides explicit examples and parameter rules, including when to omit dates. It does not directly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context from sibling names and the detailed explanation of analytics scope implies appropriate use cases.

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