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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, signaling safe read-only behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). It is consistent with annotations.

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 one concise sentence with no redundant words. Every part is essential: action, resource, identifier, and detail scope.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. The mention of 'all steps and configuration details' provides expectation of output, though no output schema exists. Slightly lacking in usage guidance, but adequate.

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 input schema fully describes the single 'id' parameter with a clear description. The description only restates 'by ID', adding no additional meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('nurture campaign'), the key identifier ('by ID'), and what is returned ('all steps and configuration details'). It clearly distinguishes from list and mutation tools.

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 implies use when retrieving a single campaign's details, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., list for multiple campaigns, update for modifications). No context about prerequisites or limitations.

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