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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral nuance — that changed/expired facts need renewed review — but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or freshness of returned data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its returned fields, with zero filler. The first sentence is an enumeration but remains readable and purposeful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are truly documented elsewhere and the annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gaps — undocumented parameters and absent usage guidance — are real but modest for a simple single-record read tool.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the schema contributes only type/pattern/format info (campaignId is a UUID) with no meaning. The description does not mention brandId or campaignId at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb ("Show") and resource (campaign) and enumerates the returned content: content, destinations, assets, facts, publishing times, and validation. This distinguishes it from list_campaigns (plural list) and get_ad_campaign (ad-specific), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The sentence "Changed or expired facts require renewed review" hints at a workflow condition but does not tell the agent when to call get_campaign versus list_campaigns or prepare_campaign.

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