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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the four possible status values an agent should expect back, but says nothing about behavior for an unknown or expired campaign_id, which matters for an open-world read.

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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'SMS Everyone REST: POST /api/campaign with Action status' is mildly redundant implementation detail but short enough not to hurt scanning.

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 must convey return semantics, and it does so by listing the four status states. For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the only real omission is error/not-found behavior.

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 campaign_id parameter is already documented as the ID returned at send/schedule time. The description adds no syntax, format, or validity guidance beyond that, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 is 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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('campaign status') and enumerates the possible outcomes (Scheduled, Running, Paused, Deleted), which is more informative than the title alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling smseveryone_get_delivery_status, which an agent must choose between.

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 'a sent or scheduled campaign' implies the prerequisite that the campaign_id must come from a prior send/schedule call, which is useful context. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the nearby smseveryone_get_delivery_status or when the tool is not appropriate.

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