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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 'read' scope requirement and what data is returned, but says nothing about error behavior for a nonexistent id or any read-only guarantees beyond the implicit 'Get'.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The scope requirement is appended cleanly, though it could arguably be folded into the first sentence.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent gets back by listing the returned fields and states the auth scope. It omits error/not-found behavior, which is the only real 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% for the single campaign_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, example, or constraint details beyond 'by id', which is the expected baseline when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one campaign by id') and enumerates the returned sub-resources (base message, audience, schedule, pacing, counts), so the agent knows what this returns. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling list_campaigns, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'by id' weakly implies this is the lookup path when you already have an identifier, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of list_campaigns as the alternative for enumerating campaigns.

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