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

Annotations already establish read-only and closed-world, so the description's added value is the cost disclosure ('Free') and the return content (posts discovered, replies by status) — real behavioral context an agent can act on. It does not mention auth requirements or pagination/limits, keeping it below a 5.

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 what is returned and ends with the when-to-use cue, with no filler sentences. The parenthetical enumeration of reply settings is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries information.

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 single-read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes both config and stats payloads and the workflow position. Additional detail on stat formats or failure modes would round it out.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already states campaign_id is a UUID from list_campaigns or create_campaign. The description adds no extra syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so 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 (get) and resource (one campaign) and enumerates the configuration surfaces returned (keywords, search context, reply settings, reply_approach, reply_tag_accounts) plus live stats. This clearly separates it from list_campaigns, get_campaign_results, and get_campaign_activity.

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?

Gives concrete triggering contexts: 'after generate_posts' and 'before adjusting the campaign', and labels the call as free. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or when-not-to-use condition, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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