direct.hf.get_campaign_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read, but the description never confirms read-only behavior, states permission requirements, or describes return shape, pagination, or what 'attached' covers (campaign-level vs ad-level). For a query tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence is efficient, but the 'Human-friendly:' prefix is throwaway and the brevity comes at the cost of missing scoping detail. Appropriately sized but under-loaded.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits the campaign-identifier requirement (both campaign_id and campaign_name are optional), permission context, and return content, none of which any structured field supplies.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it adds nothing about parameters. It never explains that campaign_id and campaign_name are undocumented alternative identifiers, that 0 params are required, or what happens when account_id is omitted. It leaves half the parameters unexplained in both places.

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 clear verb (show) and specific resources (sitelinks/callouts/vcards) scoped to a campaign, distinguishing it from write-side siblings like attach_sitelinks_to_ads and ensure_assets_for_campaign. The 'Human-friendly:' prefix is filler but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. It does not say how it differs from direct.list_sitelinks, direct.list_vcards, or direct.list_adextensions, nor whether it is a prerequisite step before attach_* or ensure_assets_for_campaign calls. The agent is left to infer everything.

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