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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the fact that it retrieves details; it does not disclose error cases, permissions, or pagination behavior. This is acceptable since the tool is a simple read operation with output schema available.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and lists representative details. It is concise with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, a clear read-only purpose, and an output schema that presumably documents the return structure. The description is complete for this simple tool, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. No additional context is needed.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage of the single parameter (campaignId) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('an Argo campaign') along with the specific details returned (name, description, rule system, co-GMs). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_campaigns' (which lists campaigns) and 'update_campaign' (which modifies).

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 implies usage for fetching details of a single campaign, which is clear from the verb 'get' and 'Retrieve details'. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'list_campaigns' or mention any contextual exclusions. The context is clear but not explicit about alternatives.

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