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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description's contribution is the 'stable public' qualifier, implying the response is a sanitized subset rather than full campaign internals — modest but real added context. It says nothing about auth, scoping, or error behavior when no campaign is found.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, but the leading 'APP:' token is unexplained noise and the sentence is spent on vague qualifiers rather than the concrete fact an agent needs.

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 described. However, with two undocumented parameters, no required-parameter guidance, and no differentiation from sibling get_campaign, an agent still cannot confidently decide when or how to call this tool.

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% and neither 'id' nor 'campaignId' is documented anywhere. The description adds nothing about what these two optional, similarly-named parameters mean, which one takes precedence, or whether omitting both is valid — a serious ambiguity for a lookup tool.

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?

States a verb (Returns) and resource (campaign status), but 'status' is never defined and the qualifiers 'stable public outbound' are unexplained. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get_campaign or get_campaign_analytics, which plausibly return overlapping data.

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 and no named alternatives, despite at least three sibling tools (get_campaign, get_campaign_analytics, list_campaigns) an agent could confuse it with. The word 'only' hints at an exclusion but never says what is excluded or which 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.