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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-payload context (content, recipients, stats), but says nothing about behavior when the ID is unknown or ambiguous, and its "stats" claim overlaps confusingly with the dedicated get-campaign-stats sibling.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what comes back) is front-loaded immediately after the verb.

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's enumeration of returned data is the key contribution and it is present. For a read tool it is adequate, but it leaves the agent guessing about not-found behavior and about how name lookup resolves against ID lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the cmp_xxx format and name alternative, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax, resolution-order, or error semantics beyond it; 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 and resource ("Retrieve a campaign") and even enumerates the payload (content, recipients, stats), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get-campaign-stats or list-campaigns, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get-campaign-stats (stats-only) or list-campaigns (enumeration), nor any note that the id accepts either an ID or a name at this level. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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