Get campaign

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false), and the description adds real value beyond them: the response carries serving issues, and include_children expands the result to live ad groups and ads while explicitly excluding archived ones. That inclusion/exclusion rule is exactly the kind of detail an agent cannot get from the 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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler; the core result (campaign plus serving issues) is front-loaded and the optional expansion follows immediately.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must signal what comes back — it names serving issues, ad groups, and ads, and explains the exclusion rule. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 50% — campaign_id is described but include_children is not documented in the schema. The description compensates by defining include_children's effect and its archived-exclusion behavior, though it adds nothing about campaign_id beyond what the schema's pattern already implies.

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: fetch one campaign by id, returning it with its serving issues. The phrase 'One campaign by id' implicitly contrasts with list-style siblings, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use for the include_children flag: explaining why a campaign is not serving. It offers no guidance on the default (no children) case versus alternatives such as list_campaigns or the measurement_* campaign tools, so usage context is only partially covered.

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