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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds value by naming the categories of data returned, which helps the agent anticipate the payload, but discloses nothing beyond that (no pagination, no auth/rate-limit notes).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the verb, the resource, and the returned contents with zero filler or repetition. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned information, and the read-only annotations cover the mutation semantics. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is near-complete, though the lack of any indication of response shape or missing-field behavior leaves a small gap.

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%: campaign_id is documented as coming from list_voice_campaigns and the fields array documents its projection purpose. The description's field list ('status, direction, dialer mode, queues, schedule and progress counters') loosely echoes the fields enum, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one voice campaign') and enumerates the returned content (status, direction, dialer mode, queues, schedule, counters), which separates it from the generic get_campaign and from get_whatsapp_campaign. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closely named sibling get_voice_campaign_report, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 the implied usage of a single-resource fetch, and the schema for campaign_id notes it is 'as returned by list_voice_campaigns', which lightly routes the agent through that sibling. However, the description itself offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g., get_voice_campaign_report vs this tool), leaving routing to inference.

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