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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what data the retrieval returns (email subject, body HTML, sending profile, delivery/engagement metrics, tracked links with click counts), and clarifies the intended call sequence relative to other tools. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 efficiently structured: the first clause states the core action and scope, the middle enumerates return contents, and the final sentence frames the workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 only one parameter and a read-only annotation, the description is complete enough: it enumerates the return content in detail, signals the safe read nature, and places the tool in a clear workflow sequence. Since there is no output schema, the explicit list of returned data compensates well.

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 100%, so the schema already documents campaign_id and tells agents to use nevent_list_campaigns to discover valid IDs. The tool description reinforces this same guidance but does not add any new parameter-level semantics, such as format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('complete record of a campaign') and enumerates the contained fields: subject, body HTML, sending profile, metrics, and tracked links. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the drill-down after nevent_list_campaigns and differentiates next-step tools like nevent_get_campaign_insights and nevent_campaign_report.

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?

The description gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Call this after nevent_list_campaigns to drill into a specific campaign.' It also names the next steps (nevent_get_campaign_insights for AI recommendations, nevent_campaign_report for full analytics query), effectively telling an agent when to use this tool versus the alternatives.

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