get_campaign_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned payload (name, status, objective, ad sets and ads with statuses and budgets) and implies a read-only lookup via 'Get', but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior for an invalid campaign_id.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return contents. Slight overlap between the 'status' in the first sentence and the return enumeration, but no filler.

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 no output schema, the description's enumeration of return fields is genuinely useful and covers the main gap. However, with no annotations and a bare 1-parameter schema, a complete definition would also address when to choose it over the sibling read tools and how to supply a valid campaign_id.

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 for the single campaign_id parameter and it largely does not. It only loosely contextualizes the value as belonging to 'a Meta campaign'; no accepted ID format or example is given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get the status of a Meta campaign) and clarifies that the result is an aggregate containing ad sets and ads, which separates it in spirit from list_campaigns/list_ad_sets/list_ads. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 required campaign_id implies you call this for one specific campaign rather than enumerating them, which weakly distinguishes it from list_campaigns. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_ad_account_summary or the granular list_* tools.

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