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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does state 'Read-only,' which is the most important safety signal. It also discloses what is reported (state, today vs daily limits, series window, latest events), but says nothing about cost, caching, freshness guarantees, or what happens when the campaign is paused or hasn't launched.

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?

A single dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the state enumeration in parentheses, capped by the 'Read-only.' tag. Slightly list-heavy, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the time window, the event sampling, and the read-only nature. The missing piece is disambiguation from sibling status tools, which matters given how many campaign-inspection tools exist.

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 67% and the two vague parameters are partly clarified: '7–28-day ... series' explains what `days` controls and 'latest events' explains `limit`. The `days` property has no schema description at all, and the interaction between `limit` and the events list is still left to inference, so the description adds only moderate value.

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 names a specific read resource (current campaign activity) and enumerates the exact status values it reports, so an agent knows the shape of the answer. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_campaign_live_status and get_campaign_monitor, which sound nearly identical.

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: 'What the campaign is doing now' suggests a live diagnostic check, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the alternative status/monitor tools. The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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