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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the data comes from the 'full synced campaign table,' but does not disclose candidate/pagination behavior, return shape, or what happens on no match. Given annotations carry the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the main purpose and exactness in minimal words, earning every character.

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?

With six optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but not inadequate: the schema compensates for parameter semantics. However, the description does not explain what 'resolve' returns, how failures or ambiguous names are handled, or the pagination mechanics, leaving some burden on the agent to infer behavior from the schema.

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 83%, and the schema already documents each parameter, including the important caveat that asin is 'never an implicit campaign choice.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('Resolve a campaign exactly') and resource ('full synced campaign table'), making clear this is an exact-match lookup rather than a general search. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_campaigns and search by emphasizing exactness, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_campaign_detail or search. The word 'exactly' implies use when a precise campaign identifier or name is known, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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