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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact content of the response, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but these are not critical for a read-only get.

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, efficient sentence that lists the key data components. It is front-loaded with the resource type and immediately states what is included. No filler or redundancy.

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 get with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned. The annotations cover safety, and the listed components give a clear picture of the response. It could optionally describe error cases or format, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 compensate. However, the description does not mention campaign_id at all. While the parameter name and tool name make its purpose obvious, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It only describes the output, not the input.

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 resource ('One campaign') and enumerates the specific data returned: settings, sequence templates, enrollment rows, and latest reply previews. This distinguishes it from list_campaigns (which lists many) and other get_* tools like get_creator or get_thread.

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?

The context is clear: use this when you have a campaign_id and need detailed information about that single campaign. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes the distinction obvious. No exclusions are needed for a straightforward get operation.

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