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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It extensively discloses return structure, the read-time snapshot nature of evidence_document_count, deprecated legacy field, unverified campaign_updates, absence of creator_email, and explicit disclaimer about platform verification. This goes beyond typical descriptions and sets clear expectations.

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 long but each sentence adds value, explaining output fields and caveats. It front-loads the purpose, then details. While not terse, it earns its length.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned objects, field semantics, deprecations, and verification caveats. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what to expect without relying on external documentation.

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?

The schema already fully describes campaign_id with 'Full campaign_id UUID returned by search_campaigns. Do not abbreviate it.' The description only repeats 'Required input: campaign_id' without adding new semantics, so it adds no value beyond the schema's 100% coverage.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'complete campaign detail for one campaign', and the 'one campaign' contrast with search_campaigns which returns multiple. It's clear what this tool does and how it differs from siblings like get_campaign_donations and get_evidence.

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?

It clearly says 'for one campaign' and requires campaign_id, implying use when you need a single campaign's full details. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions, so the agent has to infer from sibling names. It does mention that creator_email is not included, a useful constraint.

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