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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the data is live (not cached), explains budget semantics (presence indicates CBO vs ad set budgets), and mentions currency for correct unit display. It doesn't cover rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only tool these are less critical.

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 dense and efficient, front-loading the core purpose and immediately listing key fields, then providing usage guidance. No redundant sentences; every clause adds value.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, return fields, budget interpretation, currency handling, and when to use it. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without further clarification.

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% – both parameters have descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions that campaign_id comes from adsap_list_campaigns, but that is already in the schema. No extra syntax or format details are provided.

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 reads one campaign in full, live from Meta, and enumerates specific fields. It explicitly contrasts with adsap_list_campaigns, making the distinction unambiguous.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: when the cached row from adsap_list_campaigns is insufficient, for replication, budget checks, or live delivery status. It names the alternative directly and explains when not to use it.

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