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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds valuable context: results are constrained to 'owned' campaigns and the response will include brand, audience, channels, and dates. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys resource, scope, and result composition with zero filler. 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 one-parameter getter with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately indicates what the response will contain (brand, audience, channels, dates). It lacks explicit not-found behavior or authorization nuance, but the 'owned' scoping and schema-provided ID source make the tool callable correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with campaign_id fully documented as a 'Full UUID from the matching list tool.' The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('marketing campaign'), scopes it to a single owned record, and enumerates the returned aspects (brand, audience, channels, dates). This clearly differentiates it from list_marketing_campaigns and from get_marketing_audience/get_marketing_brand.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_marketing_campaigns for obtaining campaign IDs, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage hint lives in the schema's campaign_id description, not in the tool description.

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