Get campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-state characteristics are covered. The description adds what content is surfaced ('targeting and serving issues'), but says nothing about how the raw flag changes the response or what limits apply.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and returned payload front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with no output schema, the description gives a minimal sense of the return payload. It is adequate for invocation but leaves the campaign_id-only requirement and the purpose of the raw flag entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 50%: the raw flag is self-documented in the schema, while campaign_id has no description anywhere but is an obvious identifier. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so this sits at the baseline for partly-covered schemas.

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 full details of one campaign') and hints at the payload with 'targeting and serving issues.' The singular scope implicitly separates it from list_campaigns, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent must infer that this is the follow-up call after list_campaigns yields a campaign_id, and nothing tells it when get_insights or account_summary would be a better fit.

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