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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds the raw endpoint path and a preview of returned fields, which is useful, but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id, pagination, 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?

Compact and front-loaded: the action and its key output fields come first, with the endpoint path as a secondary detail. Slightly redundant to include the HTTP path, which adds little for an agent, but nothing is verbose.

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 field enumeration is genuinely valuable for setting expectations on the response. It stops short of describing the shape/types of those fields or failure modes, but it is adequate for a single-parameter read.

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% — campaign_id is fully documented as a positive integer with bounds — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves a single campaign by id, and it enumerates the fields returned (body, media_url, status, audience_size, schedule, completion). It implicitly contrasts with slicktext_list_campaigns (one vs many) but never names that sibling.

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 'by id' — call it when you already have a campaign_id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (slicktext_list_campaigns to find one, slicktext_get_campaign_stats for metrics).

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