campaigns.get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'чтение' (read), which is redundant but consistent. No additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, auth, rate limits) is provided, but the annotation coverage warrants a baseline score.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with the primary action front-loaded, plus a documentation link. There is no filler or redundant information beyond the necessary context.

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?

With 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the overall request/response flow, that FieldNames is required to select fields, or how pagination via the Page object works. While the schema descriptions provide per-parameter detail, the high-level description leaves out essential usage context for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 100%—every parameter has a detailed description listing allowed values and references to direct_fields. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general purpose, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 it returns campaign parameters matching criteria, with the verb 'Возвращает' (returns) and resource 'кампаний' (campaigns). The resource is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like direct_ads_get or direct_adgroups_get, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as direct_ads_get or direct_keywords_get. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites. The documentation link is a resource but not inline guidance.

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