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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by explaining the minimumHealth semantics and the allHeldBack/message signal for a stalled campaign, which is derivable behavior an agent could not otherwise predict.

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?

Front-loads the core retrieval statement, then uses the second sentence to explain the one non-obvious return field. It is dense but every clause earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so for settings, schedule, stats, counts, and the minimumHealth block. It could still be more complete about naming the sibling stats/sequence tools, but for a single-param read it is largely sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter (id), documented at 100% coverage in the schema, including its source (from list_campaigns). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (retrieves) and resource (campaign by ID) and enumerates what is returned: settings, schedule, stats, per-status email counts, and minimumHealth details. An agent can distinguish this from get_campaign_stats or get_campaign_sequence without opening another schema.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, even though siblings like list_campaigns, get_campaign_stats, and get_campaign_sequence overlap. The description tells the agent what comes back but not when to pick this tool over those.

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