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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the response contains (daily spend, pending proposals, executed actions), but says nothing about the window parameter's effect, pagination, or freshness of the data.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the identifier and returned data are stated immediately. Minor imprecision ('numbers') slightly weakens it but nothing is wasteful.

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 simple read-only lookup with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate, and with no output schema it reasonably sketches the returned fields. However, the unexplained window parameter and the vague 'numbers' leave gaps an agent would need to resolve before calling.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. 'By id' adequately explains campaignId, but the window parameter (enum 7/14/30/90/365, presumably a day range) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb and resource ('One campaign by id') and distinguishes itself from the sibling list_campaigns by noting the id comes from it. The trailing list of returned data ('numbers, daily spend, pending proposals...') adds scope, though 'numbers' is vague.

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 implies the usage flow by saying the id comes from list_campaigns, which tells an agent to list first and then fetch. There are no explicit when-not conditions or guidance on choosing between this and other detail-oriented siblings such as get_overview or list_proposals.

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