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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by scoping results to the connected organization and explicitly disclaiming side effects. It doesn't cover error behavior (e.g. what happens for an inaccessible or archived id), which is the remaining gap.

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 action and scope, followed by a single negation sentence that earns its place by preventing misrouting. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present, the enumerated return fields are arguably redundant, but they cost little and confirm the metadata-only nature of the read. Combined with annotations and the schema, an agent has nearly everything needed to call this 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?

Only one parameter and the schema supplies the UUID pattern but zero description coverage, so the description must carry the semantics. It identifies the argument as a campaign id but adds no format, lookup or source hint (e.g. where to obtain the id, whether archived campaigns are resolvable).

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 one accessible fixed-video campaign by campaign id in the connected organization') with a clear singular scope that separates it from campaigns_list. The returned field list (IDs, revision, archive state, workspace status, format) further pins down what kind of object this is.

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 'accessible ... in the connected organization' phrasing gives the eligibility condition, and the closing sentence rules out three neighboring behaviors (recipient contacts, media generation, sending). It doesn't explicitly point at a sibling like campaign_production_get or campaign_analytics_get for those adjacent needs, so routing is inferable rather than stated.

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