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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, annotations carry the safety profile; the description adds value by itemizing the response contents (Campaign ID, name, status, dates, per-channel configuration, summary statistics), which matters here because there is no output schema. It does not cover error behavior or invalid-ID cases, but nothing contradicts the 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the body is organized into clearly labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, PARAMETERS, CAMPAIGN ID SOURCES). The KEYWORDS block is redundant filler, restating terms already present in the prose (campaign, get, details, wizard, id, channels, audiences, ads, budget) without adding agent-decision value.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: purpose, trigger conditions, return structure, parameter semantics, and ID provenance are all covered. No information an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing; the only gaps (invalid-ID behavior) are marginal at this level of complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the PARAMETERS block largely restates the schema (integer, required). The CAMPAIGN ID SOURCES section goes beyond the schema by telling the agent where a valid value comes from — search_campaigns_by_names, the create_campaign response, or management UI URLs.

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 opening sentence is specific: 'Get full campaign details by its wizard campaign ID, including channels, audiences, ads, and budget configuration' names the verb, resource, key, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_campaign_utms and get_campaign_targeting_locations, which return only a subset, and from search_campaigns_by_names and list_wizard_campaigns, which are search/list operations rather than full-detail lookups.

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?

A dedicated WHEN TO USE section lists concrete triggers: inspecting channel/audience/budget configuration, verifying a campaign after creation, and retrieving the full structure. The CAMPAIGN ID SOURCES section further routes the agent to companion tools (search_campaigns_by_names, create_campaign) for obtaining the required ID. It lacks explicit exclusions — e.g., which sibling to choose when only a subset of fields is needed — so it stops short of a 5.

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