get_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes what the tool returns but does not disclose behavioral traits such as that it is read-only, side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For a likely read-only operation, this is a significant gap.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently lists the included sub-resources. Every part adds value without waste.

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 the tool retrieves a single record with nested data and no output schema, the description reasonably covers the return content by listing specific fields. It lacks mention of potential filtering, pagination, or performance implications, but for a get-by-id tool, it is fairly complete.

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 description adds meaning by stating the 'id' parameter can be a Campaign ID or name, which is not in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more clarity on format or constraints would be beneficial. The description provides some compensation.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single campaign's full record', and lists specific included sub-resources (offers, segments, attribution IDs, placements). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_campaigns (listing) and get_campaign_performance (performance stats).

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 when to use (when you need the full record of a single campaign) and indirectly contrasts with siblings, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tool names. The context of sibling tools makes the usage fairly clear.

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