Get one campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only the REST path, saying nothing about behavior when the campaign is missing, permission/workspace scoping, or response shape — modest value beyond the annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, zero padding. It is appropriately terse for a simple single-entity read, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 simple (one required param, no output schema), so a short description is defensible, and the annotations carry the read-only profile. Still, for an open-world external-facing fetch, the agent gets no hint about identifier format or failure behavior.

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% for the single parameter, but the description does show it as a path placeholder ({id}) for a campaign, which adds a small amount of meaning beyond the bare 'id: string'. It does not state whether the id is a numeric internal id, a slug, or a platform-level id.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one campaign'), which cleanly distinguishes retrieval of a single record from the sibling campaigns_list. The HTTP endpoint notation reinforces that this is a single-item fetch keyed by an id.

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 phrase 'one campaign' implicitly contrasts with campaigns_list, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of what happens when the id is unknown, and no routing advice among the many campaign siblings (campaigns_update, campaigns_setStatus, campaigns_list). The agent must infer usage.

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