Кампания по ID

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: MCBANNER campaigns come back empty by ID, empty results do not mean an invalid ID, and the GoalId 13 strategy sentinel semantics. These are exactly the caveats that prevent misdiagnosis of a successful call.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the field list plus caveats each carry information; nothing is filler. It is somewhat dense and long, but the length is justified by the domain-specific edge cases.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does so comprehensively (fields returned, nested PriorityGoals semantics, attribution, counters). Combined with the empty-response and MCBANNER caveats, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents campaign_id fully (pattern, decimal string). The description's ID-related notes concern interpreting output (PriorityGoals.Items[].GoalId) rather than adding syntax for the input, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('детальная информация о кампании по ID') and then enumerates the returned content (budget, status, dates, stats, UTM, PriorityGoals, Metrica counters, attribution). The 'по ID' scope makes it clearly distinct from list_campaigns in the sibling set.

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 results appear empty (MCBANNER campaigns are not returned by the API) and warns that an empty response does not imply a bad ID, which is real usage guidance. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to list_campaigns to obtain an ID.

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