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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds output content (signal types, score impact, enabled, custom/default) but no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, auth, or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, with details and usage pairing in the second sentence. No wasted words.

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 getter with one obvious parameter and full safety annotations, the description covers what it returns and gives a usage pointer. It could state campaignId explicitly, but overall it's sufficient.

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?

There is one required parameter, campaignId, with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies the campaign context but never explicitly defines campaignId or where to get it. It partially compensates by saying 'for a campaign,' but leaves parameter semantics mostly to inference from the name.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Get signal weight configuration for a campaign.' It enumerates what is shown (signal types, score impact, enabled status, custom/default), making it distinct from generic campaign getters and clearly aligned with its update counterpart.

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 provides clear usage context by connecting this read tool to its write counterpart: 'Use with campaignstack_update_campaign_weight to tune scoring.' It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the pairing implies this is the pre-tuning read step.

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