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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the domain-specific note that it does not spend credits, which matters for a mail-campaign tool with wallet semantics. 'With steps' also hints at the returned payload, though it could say more about what the steps contain.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource. 'Get campaign' plus 'Get a single campaign by ID' is slightly redundant but each clause adds scope ('single', 'with steps', 'no credits').

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value; 'with steps' hints at structure but doesn't describe fields, error behavior on unknown IDs, or whether steps include design/recipient detail. Adequate for a simple single-resource GET but not complete.

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% for the single nested 'path.id' parameter, but the description's 'by ID' adequately conveys that the input is a campaign identifier. It adds no detail about the nesting structure or ID format, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single campaign by ID with steps'), distinguishing it from the list sibling dealmachine_get_mail_campaigns by emphasizing 'single' and the inclusion of steps. It doesn't differentiate itself from the analytics/recipients/cost-estimate sub-resource siblings, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Retrieves data without changing records or spending credits' implies a safe read context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this endpoint versus dealmachine_get_mail_campaigns_id_analytics, _recipients, or the list endpoint. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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