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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It says nothing about access requirements, what happens with an unknown slug or id, or whether seats are returned in full or summarized.

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 short and front-loads the field list, but the closing 'Returns: The campaign.' is a pure restatement that earns no place. The phrase 'whether Lorekeeper sits at it' is informally worded where a plain term would be clearer.

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 full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It still omits what the returned 'look' and 'seats' actually contain and whether an invalid identifier errors or returns empty, which an agent would want when calling it.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents that the campaign is identified by slug ('what its link says') or id. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 says it returns one campaign and enumerates its fields (name, look, game system, Lorekeeper presence, seats), which conveys the resource clearly enough. However, it never states a verb and never distinguishes itself from siblings like list_campaigns, search_campaign, or get_campaign-adjacent tools, so an agent must infer this is the single-item fetch.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing explains that this is the right call for a known slug/id versus list_campaigns or search_campaign for discovery. No prerequisites (e.g., membership or visibility) are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess the selection condition.

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