get_campaign

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get details' without specifying what fields are returned, whether there are pagination limits, authentication requirements, or potential error cases. For a read operation, this is minimal context and adds little beyond the tool's name.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to the core purpose. This is appropriate given the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what 'details' includes or how it differs from related tools like get_campaign_content and get_campaign_report. It does none of this, leaving the agent with ambiguity about the returned data structure and relationship to siblings. The description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness in the context of the extensive sibling list.

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 already provides a description for the single parameter ('The campaign ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond implying that the campaign is identified by its ID, so the schema covers the semantics adequately. 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 'Get details of a specific campaign' clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (campaign), and the scope (specific, i.e., single entity). It distinguishes from list_campaigns (which lists multiple campaigns) but is less clear vs. get_campaign_content and get_campaign_report, since 'details' could be interpreted broadly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_campaign_content, get_campaign_report, or list_campaigns. The description gives no exclusions or context about the appropriate use case, leaving the agent to infer when a 'specific campaign' should be fetched versus other campaign-related data.

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