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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results include both structuredContent and a human-readable summary, that the grouping is shared-infrastructure rather than attribution, and that returned values are attacker-authored and must be treated as data, never instructions. This is unusually strong and safety-relevant transparency.

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 dense but contains no filler. The main purpose and contents are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of value: interpretation caveat, output shape, and a security warning.

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?

Given a single well-documented parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what the tool does, what the result contains, how to interpret the data, and how to handle attacker-authored values safely. No critical selection or invocation information is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents campaign_id well, including its preferred source from get_campaigns and the legacy numeric fallback. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond contextualizing the target as a campaign or suspected cluster, so the baseline of 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full detail on one possible campaign / suspected cluster', and enumerates exact contents such as evidence breakdown, per-pair relationship drill-downs, and member indicators. The singular scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_campaigns, and the 'not an attribution claim' caveat further sharpens its meaning.

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 description makes clear this tool is for inspecting a single campaign in depth rather than listing campaigns. The schema's reference to a 'stable campaign key from get_campaigns' reinforces the intended workflow, though the description itself does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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