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 still adds genuine value by ruling out side effects beyond reading ('no rendering, export or delivery') and by noting the access requirement ('accessible campaign').

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then usage and safety caveat. The enumeration of returned fields is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is compact and readable.

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-parameter read with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, the parameter's referent, side-effect boundaries, and when to call it. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does resolve the key ambiguity: the `id` is a campaign id, not a production id, which matters because the response contains both IDs. It does not repeat the UUID format, but that is fully specified by the schema pattern.

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 and resource ('Read the saved production settings') plus the scoping qualifier ('accessible campaign by campaign id'). The phrase 'production settings' clearly distinguishes it from sibling reads like campaigns_get or templates_get.

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?

'Use it to inspect the current edit before changing scenes' gives a concrete trigger context for invocation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so it falls just below the top mark.

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