Look up TCR campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context that it reads from TCR directly and does not require account registration, plus error conditions. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first clearly states purpose, second provides usage context and error list. No filler, every word earns its place.

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 (1 parameter, read-only, idempotent) and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description covers purpose, use case, and errors completely. No output schema needed.

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 100% for the single parameter tcr_campaign_id, which includes an example. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only implying the ID is from TCR. Baseline 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?

Clearly states 'Read campaign details directly from TCR by TCR campaign ID', specifying the action (read) and resource (campaign by ID). Distinguishes from siblings like msg_get_campaign (reads from account) and msg_link_campaign (links campaign), with explicit note that it works without requiring campaign registration in the account.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use before msg_link_campaign to verify a campaign exists', providing a specific use case and alternative. Also lists possible errors (NOT_FOUND, TNIQ_ERROR) to guide handling.

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