get_flash_price_campaign_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It lists returned fields and mentions the API endpoint, indicating a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only safety or potential errors, though the context suggests no side effects.

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 well-structured with sections for summary, usage, API, and return fields. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence is relevant.

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 no output schema, the description lists return fields and the API endpoint. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites beyond campaign_id, but for a single-item retrieval with one parameter, 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 only parameter, campaign_id, has a description in the schema that explains it comes from list_flash_price_campaigns. This adds value beyond the schema, which already has high coverage, by providing a clear source.

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 tool retrieves complete details of a single flash price campaign, specifying fields like discount rules and time settings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as list_flash_price_campaigns (listing) and update_flash_price_campaign (modification).

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 includes a '用途' section explaining that the tool is suitable when the campaign_id is known and all fields are needed. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the context and sibling list make the distinction clear.

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