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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main additions are the returned field set and the underlying REST endpoint. It does not disclose error behavior (e.g. not-found), permissions, or rate limits, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotation.

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 sentences with no filler: the capability and returned payload are front-loaded, and the endpoint reference is a compact trailing clause. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields fills the main gap an agent would have. Only error/failure behavior is left unstated, which is minor here.

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 schema already explains that 'campaign' is a campaign id sourced from textus_list_campaigns. The description adds no format, validation, or lookup detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one campaign') and enumerates what comes back (message body, state, schedule, recipient counts), which distinguishes it from the list variant. It stops short of explicitly naming textus_get_campaign_analytics as the sibling that covers metrics, so the boundary with analytics is only inferable from the field list.

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?

'Get one campaign' plus the singular scope implies retrieval of a known id, and the schema note points at textus_list_campaigns as the id source. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion against textus_get_campaign_analytics, and no statement of what happens if the campaign does not exist.

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