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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Read' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention response behavior, required permissions, error cases, or any other operational traits. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name itself.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-id operation, though it could afford a bit more context.

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?

The two parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the operation is simple enough to infer from the name. However, the description does not clarify the return value, distinguish from campaign_report, or give any usage context. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, with both campaign_id and organization_id documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully describes the parameters.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Read a campaign.' This distinguishes it from mutation tools like campaign_create, campaign_update, and campaign_launch. However, it does not differentiate it from the related campaign_report, which could also be described as reading campaign data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as commsharbor_campaigns (listing campaigns) or commsharbor_campaign_report (reading campaign performance). The description gives no context, exclusions, or hints about selecting this tool over its siblings.

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