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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description's 'Get' wording aligns with that. It does not add much behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but it does not contradict them and accurately reflects a safe, read-only operation.

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 detailed but each sentence contributes meaningful guidance about the returned data and how to use it. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides important interpretative notes without unnecessary filler.

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?

Given that no output schema is provided, the description compensates by explaining the structure and meaning of the returned campaign details, including ICP fields, outreach template, and settings. It gives enough context for an agent to know what to expect and how to act on the result.

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 tool description itself does not elaborate on the parameter, but the schema provides full coverage for `campaignId`, including format, pattern, and guidance to use an ID from list_campaigns or fetch_leads. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline applies and the description adds little beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 gets one campaign's details, including ICP, outreach template, and settings. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the title and name reinforce this. It is readily distinguished from sibling tools like list_campaigns or fetch_leads.

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 clear context for when to use the tool and provides specific guidance on how to interpret and use the returned fields, such as reading `company.critical` before proposing refinements. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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