ad_manager_google_get_campaign_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as what the response contains, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. It is neutral and relies entirely on annotations.

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, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is extremely brief and could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 the agent can expect in the response (e.g., campaign structure fields). It does not mention return format, prerequisites like an existing Google Ads integration, or any limitations. The description is too thin to fully prepare an agent for a correct call.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters. 'adId' is described as 'Ad identifier' and 'locationId' includes a default note. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, so a baseline score of 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 'Get Google campaign by ID' clearly indicates it fetches a campaign by its identifier, and it is not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like ad_manager_google_get_conversion_by_id or ad_manager_google_get_audience_by_id beyond the resource name, which is already in the tool name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites such as an existing Google Ads integration, nor exclusions for when to use other tools like ad_manager_google_get_campaign_reporting. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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