get_phishing_campaign

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and parameter routing, which implies a read-only call, but it does not describe response characteristics beyond the output schema, nor edge concerns like pagination behavior, error conditions, or authorization needs.

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 sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently communicates parameter placement. The phrasing 'or include values in query' is slightly awkward but still compact.

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?

Given the schema is entirely generic (additionalProperties), the description is the only source of parameter semantics and only partially covers them. It addresses path_params and query but leaves the body ambiguous and query specifics underspecified. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, and this is a simple GET, so the gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that route IDs belong in `path_params` and filtering/pagination/sorting/other values go in `query`, which is helpful. However, the `body` parameter is never mentioned, and 'include values in query' is vague about exact accepted query keys.

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 opens with 'Get phishing campaign details' – a clear verb and resource – and reinforces it with the exact endpoint `GET /phishing-campaigns/{phishingCampaignId}`. This distinguishes it from sibling `list_phishing_campaigns` by signaling singular retrieval vs. listing.

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 gives some situational guidance about where to place IDs (path_params) versus query values, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives like `list_phishing_campaigns` or `get_phishing_campaign_scenario`. Usage context is implied by the word 'get' rather than stated.

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