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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the auth requirement ('Requires a Picorn access token') and the shape of what is returned. It stops short of describing error behavior or what 'linked file IDs' concretely are.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contents, with no wasted phrasing. The auth note is terse and earns its place as a prerequisite.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and partially discharges it (ideas, linked file IDs) while noting auth. It omits how the required campaignId is sourced and any error/empty-result behavior, leaving modest gaps.

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 campaignId parameter, so the description must compensate and does not: it never states that the argument is a campaign identifier, its format, or how to obtain one (e.g., from picorn_campaigns_list). 'One campaign' only weakly implies the parameter's role.

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 ('Read one campaign') and adds the return contents ('its ideas and linked file IDs'), which lets an agent separate it from picorn_campaigns_list (many) and picorn_campaigns_create (write). It is clear without explicitly naming the siblings it differs from.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'read one campaign' suggests fetching a single campaign by ID as opposed to listing. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no exclusions, so an agent must infer the selection condition from the sibling names.

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