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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: the operation is read-only and it returns null when discovery was never configured. It stops short of auth requirements, error behavior, or what the returned settings object contains (e.g. which fields define discovery).

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?

Effectively one sentence plus a parenthetical, with the resource named first and the null-case edge condition attached directly to it. No filler, though the parenthetical reads slightly telegraphically.

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 tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers identity and the key edge case. The only real gap is not routing the agent to update_campaign_discovery or preview_update_campaign_discovery when it actually wants to change these settings.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented as a campaign UUID sourced from list_campaigns. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: retrieves the AI lead discovery settings for a single campaign, and adds a meaningful scoping fact (null when never configured). The 'get' verb implicitly separates it from update_campaign_discovery and preview_update_campaign_discovery, but it never names those siblings.

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 only implied by the verb — an agent can infer this is the read counterpart to update_campaign_discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement about prerequisites, and no pointer to the write sibling for comparison.

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