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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little beyond that by indicating the content returned (owner identity and share recipients), but it says nothing about permission requirements, whether results are paginated, or how access levels/roles are represented when there are many recipients.

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?

Six words with zero filler and no redundant restatement of the name. It is efficient, though being a bare fragment rather than a front-loaded sentence with a verb slightly weakens first-glance scannability.

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 simple, read-only, one-parameter tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential question an agent asks: what does it tell me? It adequately conveys that the result is ownership and sharing information, though it could note whether the output includes per-user access levels.

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% and the single session_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including where to obtain it (start_campaign or check_campaign). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource and scope: ownership plus sharing audience for a single campaign, which distinguishes it from siblings like share_campaign or list_campaigns. It lacks an explicit verb (it reads as a noun phrase), so the agent must infer that this is a read/list operation rather than being told directly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious adjacent tools (share_campaign, unshare_campaign) that an agent might confuse it with. The only implicit cue is the word 'shared', leaving the agent to infer this is the inspection counterpart to those mutation tools.

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