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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description adds a genuinely useful non-schema detail: 'Flat 5 points per successful run' cost disclosure. It also enumerates the returned payload in the absence of an output schema, though it omits failure behavior for an invalid slug.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. The field enumeration is long but earns its place since there is no output schema to convey the return shape.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers identity, input form, return fields, and cost, which is close to complete. The only gap is not routing the agent to the search sibling for list-style queries.

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%, so the single 'campaign' parameter is already documented with an example ('e.g. athena-ai'). The description restates 'slug or URL' but adds no format syntax or validation detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema.

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 (Get), resource (one Republic Europe/Seedrs campaign), and input form (slug or URL), then enumerates the returned data. The word 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling search tool run_seedrs_campaigns_search without needing to open either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one ... campaign by slug or URL', which signals single-record lookup, but the description never names the alternative (run_seedrs_campaigns_search) or states when to prefer a search over a direct fetch. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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