Get Email Campaign

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 fully covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned fields, giving a sense of the object's scope. It does not cover auth requirements or any error/not-found behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action and its output scope with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple single-param read tool with full annotation and schema coverage, the definition is essentially complete. Enumerating returned fields compensates for the absence of an output schema. Additional routing guidance would fully close the gap.

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?

With only one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the required uuid 'id'. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond implying a single campaign is retrieved, 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one email campaign), and the singular 'one' distinguishes it from list-email-campaigns. It also enumerates the object's fields (status, sender, subject, template, audience, schedule), so the agent knows what it retrieves. However, it does not name or differentiate from the sibling get-*-campaign tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list-email-campaigns for browsing or update-email-campaign for changes. The singular 'one' implicitly suggests it fetches a single known campaign, but nothing routes the agent between options.

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