get_affiliate_campaign_detail

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full responsibility. It mentions the API method (GET) indicating a read operation, but does not explicitly state idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about the read-only nature.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured with clear sections (用途, API call, return structure). Every sentence adds value, and no redundant information exists.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return structure (dict with specific fields) which compensates. Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no nested objects), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know for 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?

The single parameter campaign_id is already described in the schema as being obtained from list_affiliate_campaigns. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond that; since schema coverage is 100%, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves complete details of a single affiliate campaign, specifying it queries commission rules, scope, and promotion links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_affiliate_campaigns and update_affiliate_campaign by focusing on detail retrieval for a known campaign_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?

Description indicates proper use is when campaign_id is known, implying prior use of list_affiliate_campaigns. It provides clear context for use but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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