get_journal

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only restates that the tool retrieves details. It does not clarify read-only behavior, response contents, error behavior, or campaign scoping beyond the word 'Get'.

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 six-word description has no redundancy and is easy to scan. However, it is under-specified relative to the missing parameter and context information, so the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 two required parameters, no schema-level parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this description leaves too much implicit. An agent cannot reliably determine what the parameters mean, what the returned details look like, or when this tool is preferable to the list/search variants.

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%, and the description does not explain either required parameter. The word 'journal' gives minimal context for interpreting 'id', but 'campaignId' and the relationship between the two IDs are left completely unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('Get details') and resource ('a journal'), which clearly identifies this as the singular retrieval tool for journals. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_journals, but the singular phrasing and 'details' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus list_journals, search, or the other journal CRUD operations. It also does not state prerequisites like needing an existing journal id and campaignId, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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