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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing about return behavior, pagination, or auth beyond what annotations and the field list imply.

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 fragment with no filler; each listed field earns its place as a preview of the return shape. Slightly terse even for a one-param read tool, but no waste.

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 read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, this is adequate: the agent knows the id, safety profile, and rough return fields. It lacks any error/not-found or empty-state note, so it is complete enough but not rich.

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% (campaign_id documented), and the description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for the id. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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+resource (get_campaign → 'Campaign detail') and enumerates the fields returned (status, enrolled count, sequence step types, connected seats), which distinguishes it from list_campaigns and preview_campaign. It does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the singular resource name – fetch detail for one campaign by id. There is no explicit when-to-use vs list_campaigns or preview_campaign, and no prerequisites stated, so it's minimum-viable guidance.

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