ad_manager_li_get_campaign_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Get'—it does not mention what fields are returned, what happens if the adId is invalid, or whether the result is a single object or a list. Since it adds nothing over the annotations, a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words—but this extreme brevity sacrifices utility. It is not front-loaded with any meaningful detail beyond the verb and resource. It is structured acceptably but under-specified, so it earns a middling score.

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?

The tool is a simple getter with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description should clarify what a 'campaign group' is and what the tool returns. Here it only repeats the tool name without elaboration. It also fails to note that this is a LinkedIn-specific tool (implied by 'li' in the name) or how it differs from reporting tools. An agent would have to guess at essential context, making this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (adId and locationId) are already documented with descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema does the heavy lifting, and no additional clarity is given.

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 ('Get') and resource ('ad campaign group'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like ad_manager_li_get_campaign_group_reporting or ad_manager_li_get_ad_account_details, so an agent might confuse them.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or distinctions from similar 'get' tools in the ad_manager_li family. An agent would need to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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