Get campaign

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context about the Pro plan requirement and the affiliate count in the response, but it does not describe error behavior or what 'full detail' includes beyond that.

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 two short sentences with no wasted language. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the plan requirement follows naturally.

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-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core retrieval behavior and an important prerequisite. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning behavior when the campaign is missing or the plan is insufficient, but it is adequate overall.

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%, and the single campaignId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or validation meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get one campaign with full detail, including affiliate count.' It clearly distinguishes a single-campaign lookup from list-style siblings like list_campaigns, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage by specifying retrieval of one campaign and adds a prerequisite: 'Requires Pro plan or higher.' However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_campaigns or what to do if the plan requirement is not met.

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