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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: warns that Studio aiActivation/adBuild fields are workflow state, not creative inventory, preventing misinterpretation. It also notes the returned JSON is internal state and should not be displayed raw, which goes beyond structured annotations.

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 verbose and includes extensive presentation instructions (e.g., 'Use assistantSummary first,' 'Never display raw JSON') that are unrelated to tool selection or invocation. Essential information about purpose and alternatives is buried among general response-style guidance, reducing clarity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks technical specifics: it does not clarify how the many optional parameters interact, what happens when multiple identifiers are provided, or error conditions. The behavioral warning about aiActivation/adBuild fields is helpful, but the tool invocation context remains incomplete.

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?

With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no explanation for any parameter except an implicit mention of campaignId in the usage note. It fails to define seatId, taskId, assetId, or other parameters and their interactions, leaving the agent without semantic understanding for invocation.

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 'get campaign' and 'Campaign metadata only,' specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it is not for creative inventory and directing to list_creatives. However, the purpose is embedded in a lengthy description with unrelated presentation guidance.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and alternative guidance: 'If the user asks for creatives or creative inventory for a known campaignId, call list_creatives directly; do not preflight get_campaign.' This clearly tells the agent when not to use the tool and which sibling tool to use instead.

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