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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the shape of the payload (status, progress, top places, newest running batch), which is genuinely useful context, but because a full output schema exists it largely restates structured data rather than disclosing behavior beyond it.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the key scoping word 'One' and the payload contents are front-loaded. The telegraphic, verbless phrasing means it reads more like a caption than a definition, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 read-only single-record fetch, the description plus the 100%-covered single parameter, rich annotations and an output schema give the agent nearly everything needed to call it correctly. The missing piece is routing information versus the sibling list/search tools.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains where the campaign_id comes from. The description adds no further meaning about the id format, resolution, or error behavior, 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?

The description enumerates what is returned ('status, leads so far, progress by keyword, its top places and the newest batch') for a single advanced search, and the word 'One' implicitly distinguishes it from list_advanced_searches. However, there is no verb and no explicit statement that it retrieves a single search by id; the agent must infer that from the tool name and title alone.

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 guidance on when to call this versus list_advanced_searches or get_search_results. The only reference to siblings appears in the schema's campaign_id description ('An id from run_advanced_search or list_advanced_searches'), which explains id provenance rather than tool selection.

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