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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the override rule — a search URL takes precedence over locations and industries — which is a data-interpretation quirk an agent would otherwise misread.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field list is dense but each item is informative. Slightly long, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately characterizes what is returned, including the override note. The only real gap is not routing the agent away from get_campaign or toward update_campaign_targeting.

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 documented in the schema as coming from list_campaigns. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

The description states a specific verb (show) and resource (campaign targeting) and enumerates the exact fields returned — job titles, locations, industries, companies, and a pasted LinkedIn/Sales Navigator URL. It distinguishes itself from the generic get_campaign implicitly through that content list, but never names a 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 (read a campaign's targeting config) but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the write counterpart update_campaign_targeting, and no guidance on when to prefer get_campaign vs this tool.

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