Get Click Counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds value by specifying 'unique' counts and the requirement for link tracking, which are behavioral notes not present in annotations. However, it omits further details like aggregation behavior, rate limits, or impact of suppressions.

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 sentence, fully front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word 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 tool's relative simplicity, the description covers the core purpose but lacks usage guidelines and parameter explanations for tag and messagestream. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the gaps in guidance and parameter semantics make it merely adequate, not complete.

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 50%, leaving tag and messagestream undocumented. The description does not explain these parameters or how they affect the counts. It only describes the result, not the input semantics, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gets counts of unique link clicks, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_open_counts or get_sent_counts by focusing on clicks. The mention of 'requires link tracking' adds a condition without obscuring the purpose.

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 implies usage when you need unique link click counts and adds the prerequisite that link tracking is enabled. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Siblings like search_message_clicks and get_open_counts exist, but no guidance is given to differentiate them.

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