get_campaign_abuse_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds the return field list, which helps the agent understand the response. No side effects are mentioned, but the annotations cover the primary behavioral aspect.

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 very concise and well-structured: a purpose sentence, usage guidance, then parameter and return details. It front-loads the critical information and uses minimal words efficiently.

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?

While the description covers the two required parameters, it omits the optional 'account' parameter present in the schema. Additionally, with output schema available, listing return fields is helpful but somewhat redundant. The gap in parameter coverage reduces completeness.

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 detailing the campaign_id and report_id parameters, including how to obtain each. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema structure.

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, with a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_campaign_abuse_reports' which lists reports, so the agent can select correctly.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('to inspect the details of one complaint') and how to obtain required IDs from the list endpoint. This provides clear guidance on tool selection and prerequisites.

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