get_campaign_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'explicitly allow-listed customer' eligibility/auth context, but it does not disclose return shape, error behavior, or what happens for non-allow-listed customers.

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 with no filler; it front-loads the verb and resource and adds one relevant constraint. The phrase 'explicitly allow-listed' is slightly awkward but still compact and purposeful.

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 two-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: return content is undefined, parameter semantics are undocumented, and there is no positioning against sibling tools. An agent can infer much from the schema and tool name, but the description alone does not fully support correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description mentions 'customer' and 'campaign' only generically without explaining what customer_id or campaign_id mean, how they relate, or what values are valid. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('details for one campaign'), and adds a scope constraint ('explicitly allow-listed customer'). It distinguishes from list_campaigns by saying 'one campaign' and from cost/performance siblings by saying 'details', though 'details' remains somewhat generic and siblings are not explicitly named.

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 use when a single campaign's general details are needed from an allow-listed customer, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not reference alternatives like get_campaign_cost, get_campaign_performance, or list_campaigns.

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