Get campaign performance

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: counts are unique contacts rather than raw events, with an illustrative example. This goes beyond the annotations and helps avoid misinterpretation of the returned numbers.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides a crucial clarification about counting semantics. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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 read-only metric retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned metrics and the unique-contact counting rule. It could optionally have mentioned the response format or whether rates are percentages, but given the annotations already cover the read-only behavior, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), but those descriptions are minimal ('Profile uuid parameter' and 'Campaign uuid parameter'). The tool description adds no further meaning about these parameters. Since the schema already documents them at a baseline level, a score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not need to compensate for a 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 resource (campaign performance) and the specific metrics (delivery, opens, clicks, unsubscribes and their rates). The verb 'get' is explicit, and the list of metrics distinguishes this from sibling tools like reach_getCampaignDetailsV1, which would focus on campaign metadata rather than performance numbers.

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 conveys a clear context: it is for retrieving performance metrics of a specific campaign. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the metric list leaves little ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate. With many reach_* siblings present, a more explicit comparison to reach_getCampaignDetailsV1 or reach_listCampaignsV1 would have elevated the score, but the current wording is sufficient for most agents.

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