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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' effectively communicates a read-only operation, but the description does not mention error handling, authorization needs, or what happens for invalid IDs. This is adequate but minimal.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific fields returned. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple get-by-id tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what it does, the resource, and the kind of data returned. It could mention error or permission behavior, but that is a minor gap for this tool's simplicity.

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% and the description does not explicitly define the 'id' parameter. However, with only one parameter named 'id' and the tool being get_campaign, its meaning is easily inferred. The description adds little semantic value beyond that inference.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('a single campaign'), and lists distinctive content ('status, sequence, channel paused flags, today stats'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_campaigns or update_campaign.

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 phrase 'single campaign' implies use when you need detailed data for one campaign rather than a list, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool. Usage context is implied, not direct.

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