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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notable return fields, but does not discuss permissions, error behavior for an unknown UID, or other operational context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It states the operation, key input, and returned fields efficiently.

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 simple single-resource getter with annotations and one parameter, the description is mostly complete, especially since it lists the fields returned in the absence of an output schema. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying error behavior or the relationship to list campaigns.

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?

The only parameter is campaign_uid, and the description says the lookup is "by uid," which aligns with the schema name but adds little detail. With 0% schema description coverage, it does not explain UID format, source, or validation beyond what the schema pattern already enforces.

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 specific verb and resource: get one campaign by uid, and lists the main fields returned. It clearly implies the single-item counterpart to list_campaigns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_campaign_summaries.

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 phrase "by uid" implies this tool should be used when the caller already has a campaign UID, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus list_campaigns or get_campaign_summaries. Usage is therefore inferable but not fully guided.

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