get_campaign_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. 'Rich details' hints at a heavier payload but does not state required permissions, whether errors occur for unknown IDs, or any rate-limit/caching behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the vagueness flagged elsewhere.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return fields, which limits the damage. Still, with no annotations covering safety and no parameter explanation, a caller of this otherwise simple single-parameter tool is left with noticeable gaps.

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%, so the single parameter campaign_id is documented nowhere. The description does not clarify its expected format or where to obtain it, leaving the caller with no semantic detail beyond the schema's type.

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 (Get) and resource (one campaign), and 'one campaign' implies a single-item fetch as opposed to the list-oriented sibling get_campaigns. However, it never names that sibling or otherwise differentiates beyond the singular article.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of get_campaigns or analyze_campaign, nor any stated prerequisite such as needing a valid campaign_id obtained elsewhere. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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