get_contract_assigned_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' (implying a read operation) but does not clarify whether archived contracts are included, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the response structure. This minimal disclosure is inadequate given the absence of annotation context.

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 filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it sacrifices explanatory depth for brevity.

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?

The tool is a simple getter with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides minimal context about return values, filtering, or edge cases. An agent would not know what the response looks like or what assumptions to make about the data returned, making this incomplete for a tool in a large API surface.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'id' as 'Contract ID', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema already provides the necessary semantics, the baseline score of 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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('campaigns assigned to a contract'), which distinguishes it from generic campaign getters like get_campaign or list_campaigns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar assignment-related tools such as list_campaign_assignments or vast_list_campaign_assignments, which could cause confusion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings, such as list_campaign_assignments, vast_list_campaign_assignments, or get_contract. The description provides no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or when this tool is preferred.

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