ghl_email_get_campaign_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with OAuth scopes (emails/stats.readonly) and provides the endpoint, but does not add further behavioral details like pagination or response structure.

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 concise, with only four lines. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides essential technical details (endpoint, version, OAuth scopes). Some may consider the endpoint too technical for an LLM, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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?

The description lacks information about what statistics are returned and their structure. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate by describing the return value, which it does not. This makes the tool less complete for an 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the endpoint path which implicitly includes locationId, source, and sourceId, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not elaborate on subSourceId.

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 it retrieves statistics for email campaigns, workflows, or bulk actions. It explicitly names the three source types, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_email_get_campaign that return individual campaign details.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention that this is for aggregated statistics and not for fetching individual campaign details, which is available via sibling tools.

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