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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by listing the payload contents (dates, goal, fund, purpose, parent campaign, status, page URLs, statistics) — important since there is no output schema — and by mapping to the underlying API route.

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 the core purpose, followed by the API endpoint as supporting detail. Every clause earns its place; the endpoint reference is marginally redundant but cheap.

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?

With no output schema, the enumerated field list is exactly the replacement an agent needs to know what comes back, and readOnlyHint covers safety. Missing only failure-mode behavior (e.g., unknown id), which is a minor gap for a simple getter.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it as 'The campaign id.' The description adds no format, prefix, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (fetch) and resource (one campaign), and enumerates the returned fields so the agent knows exactly what data this call yields. It implicitly separates itself from neon_list_campaigns by saying 'one campaign', though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the single-entity phrasing and the required campaign_id, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over neon_list_campaigns or what happens if the id is unknown. Adequate, not instructive.

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