get_campaign_abuse_report

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value with 'Read-only, safe to retry', 'Max 10 concurrent requests', and 'Authenticated via API key', providing useful operational constraints beyond the 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 brief intro, usage hints, then clearly separated Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative and earns its place without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (single get operation with 3 parameters and existing output schema), the description covers all needed aspects: how to obtain IDs, authentication, rate limits, read-only nature, and return fields. It is complete for agent selection and 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: campaign_id (how to obtain), report_id (how to obtain), and account (optional, with example and reference to list_accounts). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 a single abuse complaint for a sent campaign, distinguishing it from sibling tool get_campaign_abuse_reports which lists reports. The verb 'retrieve' and specific resource are well-defined.

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 explains when to use the tool (inspect details of one complaint) and directs to get_campaign_abuse_reports for discovering report IDs. While it provides clear context, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the workflow is well-defined.

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