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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds the single-campaign scope and the report content categories, which is useful, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or potential variations in report completeness. This is similar to the calibrated get_calls example: moderate added context but no deeper behavioral detail.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, lists the report contents, and ends with a clear usage cue. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete: it identifies the target resource, the report contents, and the proper workflow. The absence of an output schema makes the lack of any return-structure detail a minor gap, but the listed report sections give an agent enough to work with.

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 provides no descriptions for projectId or campaignId, and the description does not explain either parameter. It only refers to 'a campaign' generically, which weakly hints at campaignId but does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage. The parameter names are conventional, but the description itself adds almost no semantic value.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Load one campaign's full report' and enumerates the report's contents (funnel, click-to-open, geography, metadata). The single-campaign scope clearly distinguishes it from account-level or list-based sibling tools like sm_list_campaigns and sm_get_account.

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 phrase 'Use after you have identified a campaign of interest' gives clear contextual guidance on when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow cue is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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