ad_manager_fb_get_campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns 'linked entities,' which is a behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide, but it does not disclose what those entities are or any other side effects or error behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that fronts the main action and object. There is zero wasted wording, and it conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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 description should clarify what 'linked entities' means and the structure of the returned data. It does not, so an agent may be uncertain about the response format or the extent of the included entities. For a tool that can return complex nested campaign data, this description is incomplete.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it does not explain how 'fields' affects the response or what 'source' denotes, leaving the parameter descriptions to stand alone.

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 'Get campaign with linked entities,' which clearly identifies the verb (Get) and resource (campaign), and adds scope ('linked entities'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ad_manager_fb_get_campaign_reporting or ad_manager_fb_get_entity, though it does not enumerate which linked entities are included.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context scenarios, and no mention of when not to use it. The description relies solely on the tool name to imply its use case, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between the many sibling ad_manager_fb_* tools.

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