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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds tenant scoping and the public-DTO nature, but does not explain what happens if the campaign is not found or whether tenant scoping affects access.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a usage hint. There is little waste, though the usage hint is under-specified rather than merely concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero parameter documentation and two ambiguous optional identifiers, the definition does not give an agent enough information to call the tool correctly without guessing.

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% for two string parameters, id and campaignId, and both are optional. The description says nothing about which identifier to use, whether one is preferred, or whether the absence of both is valid, leaving invocation materially ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reads one tenant-scoped outbound email campaign, returning a public DTO. It is clear and scoped, but it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings such as get_campaign_status or get_campaign_analytics.

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?

'Use after create or to inspect status' implies when it is useful, but it names no alternative tool and gives no exclusion conditions. An agent must infer that get_campaign_status or get_campaign_analytics serve related but different purposes.

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