get_campaign_feedback

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (feedback_id, message, is_complete, etc.), which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictory or missing behavioral traits.

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 clear purpose sentence, usage guidance, then parameter descriptions, and return fields. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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 low complexity (single read operation), the description fully covers how to obtain required parameters, what the tool does, and what it returns. The output schema is described in detail, and sibling tools provide context for discoverability. No gaps detected.

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%, but the description adds meaning for two required parameters: campaign_id ('Obtain from list_campaigns') and feedback_id ('Obtain from list_campaign_feedback'). The optional 'account' parameter is not described, but it is likely seldom needed. The descriptions enhance understanding beyond the schema titles.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'a single team feedback comment on a campaign.' It also distinguishes from sibling 'list_campaign_feedback' by noting it is for discovering feedback IDs, making the purpose clear and specific.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to read one collaboration comment) and explicitly directs users to 'list_campaign_feedback' for discovering feedback IDs. It also advises obtaining campaign_id from 'list_campaigns', offering practical guidance.

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