Get campaign defaults

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds context beyond annotations by detailing the exact structure of the returned data (utm_parameters, fallback_notification, fallback_attributes, default_expiry) and noting that these are the defaults applied to push campaigns. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a first sentence states the primary function, followed by a parenthetical list of fields and a closing clause that grounds the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or 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 an output schema present and annotations indicating read-only behavior, the description is largely complete. It explains the return structure and the tool's relationship to the dashboard, but could be slightly enhanced by explicitly noting the optional site_id override behavior, though that is covered in the input schema. Overall, it is thorough for a simple read operation.

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% for the sole parameter site_id, which is described as 'Override the currently selected site.' The description does not mention this parameter, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond that.

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's function: 'Returns the current site's campaign default settings' and enumerates the exact fields returned. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'update_campaign_defaults' tool, as the verb 'Returns' and the focus on reading defaults makes the read-only purpose explicit.

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 conveys when to use this tool—when you need the current campaign defaults—and notes that these match the dashboard's Campaign Defaults page. It does not explicitly name the update counterpart or provide exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over the write sibling.

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