Get In-App Campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the shape of what comes back (status, layout, content, trigger, targeting), which is useful, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown id or whether the returned data is live or cached.

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 with no filler; the resource comes first and the returned fields follow. It is efficient, though the field list is a bare enumeration that could have been spent on routing guidance instead.

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 usefully summarizes the returned payload, and the annotations cover the read-only, idempotent profile. For a one-parameter getter this is nearly sufficient, with the only real gap being how the id is sourced.

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% for the single id parameter, which the schema documents as a UUID with an explicit pattern, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description never mentions the id or how to obtain one (e.g., from list-in-app-campaigns), adding nothing beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Get one in-app campaign') and enumerates the data it returns (status, layout, content, trigger, targeting). The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with list-in-app-campaigns, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus list-in-app-campaigns, update-in-app-campaign, or clone-in-app-campaign. The usage is only implied by the singular resource and the required id parameter, leaving the agent to infer the retrieval-by-id scenario.

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