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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the optional delivery logs per recipient, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not disclose whether logs are included by default, what the response format looks like, error handling, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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, focused sentence of moderate length. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the optional-logs clause adds relevant context without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide more context about what 'details' includes, whether logs are returned by default, and how includeLogs and logLimit interact. The description is adequate for a simple get-details tool but leaves several important aspects unaddressed, making it complete only at a basic level.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially addresses the log-related parameters (includeLogs, logLimit) by mentioning 'optional delivery logs per recipient,' but it doesn't explain what logLimit does or how includeLogs controls the logs. Required parameters like orgSlug and campaignId are self-explanatory from their names, but the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Get details of a specific campaign with optional delivery logs per recipient.' The verb 'Get' is specific, and the resource is identified as a specific campaign, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like comms_list_campaigns (list) and comms_send_campaign (send). This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool should be used when a user needs details of a single campaign, as opposed to listing campaigns. The context is clear, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations. Still, the phrasing 'specific campaign' provides enough contextual guidance for typical use cases.

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