Get campaign

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds modest value by naming effective_status and delivery_status as the notable returned fields, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., behavior for a non-existent campaign_id) or return shape beyond those two fields.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the notable output fields appended. No filler, though it is so terse that it leaves obvious questions unaddressed.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the definition is minimally adequate. It hints at returned fields but omits any guidance on identifier source or error/empty-result behavior, leaving it just viable rather than complete.

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?

There is a single parameter, campaign_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so nothing in the structured data explains its format. The description does not clarify it either, though its meaning is largely self-evident from the name. Slight gap keeps this at baseline rather than higher.

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 (campaign) and even names two fields returned (effective_status, delivery_status). This lets an agent distinguish it from list_campaigns, create_campaign, and update_campaign. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with its siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 versus reddit_ads_list_campaigns or reddit_ads_update_campaign, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., owning/accessing the campaign). Usage is only implied by the name.

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