get_campaign_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that only a predefined set of fields is requested and that access_token is optional with a cached-token fallback. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or what happens for invalid IDs. Some behavioral context is added, but it's not comprehensive.

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 structured with a clear main purpose, a useful note about field selection, and formatted argument explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the note could be seen as slightly tangential to basic usage. Overall efficient and well-organized.

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 it's a simple read operation with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and some behavioral nuances. It doesn't explain return values (covered by output schema) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives. Good enough for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains campaign_id as a Meta Ads campaign ID and access_token as optional with cached-token behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema properties.

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 detailed information about a specific campaign' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling get_campaigns (which presumably lists campaigns) by focusing on a single campaign's details, though it doesn't explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description ('a specific campaign'), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The note about requesting only a specific set of fields is more implementation detail than usage guidance.

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