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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does an excellent job: it discloses that evidence_document_count is a read-time snapshot, explains has_evidence equivalence, notes deprecated fields, mentions append-only nature of updates, states what is not included (creator_email), and explicitly warns that zooidfund does not verify accuracy. This is exemplary transparency for a read tool.

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 dense paragraph that may be somewhat long, but each sentence adds important behavioral or field-level clarity. It is front-loaded with the tool's core function and requirement, then details output fields and caveats. Appropriate for the complexity of the output.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description thoroughly documents the output structure: the campaign object with listed fields, separate funding_progress and evidence_summary objects, and important caveats about data semantics. It covers accuracy warnings and legacy fields, making it highly complete for agent decision-making.

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's single parameter is minimally described (just campaign_id as string). The description adds the meaning: 'campaign_id' is required and used to fetch one campaign's complete detail. It doesn't describe format but the meaning is clear. With only one param and 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the input's role, though not deeply.

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 clearly states the tool fetches complete campaign detail for one campaign, with specific verb and resource. It mentions required input and what is included, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_campaign_donations and get_evidence, which focus on different aspects.

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 explicitly states the required input and notes that it returns campaign detail, implying use when full campaign data is needed. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_campaigns or get_evidence, but the detail-rich output makes the use case clear. No exclusions are given, but the context is sufficient.

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