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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: which optional flags control what data is included, and how format=summary behaves for follow-up reads. It does not explain defaults or detail response behavior, but the output schema and annotations cover the core safety profile.

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?

Four sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and conditional guidance following logically. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description is strong for a read-only single-campaign lookup: it explains scope, filtering flags, alternatives, and a follow-up read mode. Minor gaps remain around analyticsDateRange/analyticsGranularity usage and defaults, but output schema and annotations fill in much of the remaining picture.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain includeAnalytics, includeDeploymentStatus, includeCountries, and format. However, analyticsDateRange and analyticsGranularity are left unexplained and their relationship to includeAnalytics is not clarified.

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 clearly states the tool fetches full details for one campaign, including budget, targeting, platform status, and next actions. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the list alternative, making its purpose 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when the user wants full details for one campaign') and an explicit when-not-to-use rule with a named alternative ('use dynamoi_list_campaigns instead'). It also gives practical advice about when to prefer format=summary after mutations.

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