read_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Fetch detailed campaign metadata') without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication (implied by meta_access_token parameter but not explained), rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed metadata' entails. This leaves critical operational aspects undocumented.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.

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 tool has an output schema (which should define return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and 2 parameters, the description lacks crucial context like authentication needs, error cases, and parameter semantics. It's incomplete for a tool that likely involves API calls and sensitive data, but the output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to explain what 'campaign_id' is (e.g., a unique identifier) or the purpose of 'meta_access_token' (e.g., for authentication). With 2 parameters and no compensation in the description, this is a significant gap in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('detailed campaign metadata'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_campaigns' (which lists multiple campaigns) and 'update_campaign' (which modifies campaigns). However, it doesn't explicitly mention it retrieves a single campaign by ID, which could be slightly more specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a campaign_id), contrast with 'list_campaigns' for multiple campaigns, or specify use cases like viewing campaign details before editing. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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