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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, while the description adds substantial behavioral context: returned fields, read-time snapshot semantics for evidence counts, deprecated legacy status, append-only unverified campaign_updates, exclusion of creator_email, and verification caveats. It also clearly discloses what the factual fields do not assess.

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 front-loaded with purpose, required input, and return fields, and most sentences add useful context. It is somewhat verbose because the final verification disclaimers repeat the same idea in several sentences, but the overall structure remains efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value and behavioral context; it does so thoroughly by naming returned fields, describing funding_progress and evidence_summary, explaining evidence count semantics, and disclosing caveats. Given the simple one-parameter read operation, an agent has enough information to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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 parameter already has a clear description requiring the full campaign_id UUID. The description repeats that campaign_id is required but adds no extra syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetching complete detail for one campaign. It distinguishes the tool from search_campaigns by emphasizing a single campaign and full detail, and it enumerates the returned fields so an agent knows this is a detail lookup rather than a search or donation/evidence listing.

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 states the required input and that the tool returns one campaign's complete detail, which implies use after finding a campaign_id. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus search_campaigns, get_campaign_donations, or get_evidence, and it provides no exclusions or routing guidance.

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