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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the scope of the payload (which fields are and are not included) and the underlying endpoint GET /campaigns/{CampaignID}/view.json. It does not, however, note auth requirements, error behavior, or rate limits.

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?

Three tight clauses, zero filler, and the payload scope is front-loaded before the exclusion and endpoint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explicitly flagging the excluded statistics, which is precisely what an agent needs to choose this tool over its siblings.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already documents campaign_id as a GUID sourced from moosend_list_campaigns. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource ('Get one campaign's details') and then enumerates the exact fields returned: subject, sender/reply-to, HTML and plain content, target lists/segments, schedule, status, A/B data. It also names the sibling it is not (campaign_summary), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states a negative boundary ('No statistics') and routes the agent to the correct alternative for that need ('use moosend_get_campaign_summary'). That is exactly the when-not/alternative guidance that disambiguates it from the several get_campaign_* siblings.

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