ghl_get_email_campaign

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, and there is no mention of anything unexpected. However, it does not disclose potential error behaviors, auth requirements, or rate limits. For a simple retrieval tool, this is minimal but adequate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler, every word earns its place. For a simple get-by-ID tool, this is perfectly concise.

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's simplicity—one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects—the description is complete enough. It conveys what the tool does and what it returns (the campaign) implicitly. It does not explain the difference between 'email campaign' and other campaign types, but the sibling list provides context. Overall, adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has one parameter 'campaignId' with description 'Campaign ID to retrieve', providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is high, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a single email marketing campaign by ID.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'email marketing campaign' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ghl_get_email_campaigns' by using 'single' and 'by ID', making it unambiguous which tool to use for retrieving one 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: use this tool when you have a specific campaign ID and need that one campaign. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'ghl_get_email_campaigns' for listing campaigns or 'ghl_get_campaigns' for non-email campaigns. This is acceptable for a simple get-by-ID tool, but not proactively guiding.

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