Diagnose Campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it explains the early-termination behavior, the shape of the output (one stage, evidence, one change), and the degraded case where incomplete figures cause it to name the unassessable stage instead of guessing. It does not cover permissions, cost, or whether the diagnostic is read-only.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then two supporting sentences on behavior and edge cases. The phrasing is somewhat discursive ('that is worse than no diagnosis'), which costs a little density, but every sentence contributes information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description's mention of stage/evidence/change is complementary rather than redundant. It covers the key behavioral edge case (partial data) but leaves the lone parameter undocumented.

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 0% for the single campaign_id parameter, and the description does not compensate — it never states the id format or source. The parameter is an obvious identifier, so an agent can still invoke it, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Run the diagnostic chain') against a specific resource ('one campaign') and a specific return ('the failing stage'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_campaign_stats or get_campaign, which return raw data rather than a diagnosis.

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 clear context for when to use it: it walks the chain in order and stops at the first failure 'rather than returning five stages of numbers when the first one is broken' — implicitly contrasting with the stats siblings. It also states the partial-data case, but does not name a specific alternative tool or prerequisite to prefer this over get_campaign_stats.

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