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 adds value beyond that by naming the underlying endpoint (GET /campaigns/{campaign}) and the response envelope ({ data:{...} }), but says nothing about error behavior, missing-campaign handling, or auth requirements.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, endpoint mapping, and response shape. Front-loaded with the core action and free of filler.

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, so the description carries some burden for returns — it gives the { data:{...} } envelope, which is enough shape for a simple getter. Minor gaps remain around failure cases, but for a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('The campaign uuid or URL path/slug'). The description restates the same accepted forms without adding format examples or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch a single campaign') and the lookup key ('by id or path/slug'). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the raisely_list_campaigns sibling, though no sibling is named 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 tool's nature – an agent can infer this is for retrieving one campaign when the id/slug is known. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer raisely_list_campaigns or raisely_request, and no prerequisites or error conditions described.

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