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

The readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false annotations already declare this is a safe, closed-world read, so the description adds no behavioral context. Its enumeration of returned fields is largely redundant because an output schema exists, and it says nothing about not-found behavior or permissions.

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?

It is short and wastes no words, but it is a bare fragment rather than a front-loaded description with a guiding clause. Brevity here comes at the cost of specification rather than from efficiency.

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?

Annotations cover safety, the single parameter is fully documented, and an output schema handles return values, so little is strictly missing. The remaining gap is that nothing tells the agent to prefer this over campaigns_list for a single record lookup.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents campaignId and its 24-hex pattern. The description adds no further meaning (no format example, no validity rules), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus campaigns_list, campaigns_update, or campaigns_set_status, and no preconditions are mentioned. The only routing hint, campaignId coming from campaigns_create, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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