get_campaign

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the list of returned fields, going beyond the annotations by specifying what 'full details' includes. No contradiction.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and then a compact enumeration of the returned data. No unnecessary words.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description gives sufficient information about return contents. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit list of fields.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for campaign_id with a clear type hint. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints, so it doesn't improve on the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it retrieves full details for a single campaign, naming specific data categories (content, audience segment, schedule, delivery statistics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns (which lists campaigns) and create/send_campaign.

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 when a specific campaign's detailed information is needed, as opposed to list_campaigns for a summary. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'full details' and 'one campaign' phrasing provides clear context.

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