direct_get_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'READ-ONLY' and discloses that negatives are only a 'sample', which is an important limitation. However, it does not mention other details like response structure or error behavior, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and key limitations without waste. Every word adds value.

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 read-only getter with one parameter, the description adequately lists what will be returned (detail, strategy, excluded sites, negatives sample). No output schema exists, but the listed components provide sufficient context. It could mention the return format in more detail, but overall is complete enough.

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 100% and the parameter description 'Yandex campaign Id' already explains the single parameter. The description repeats 'by Yandex Id' without adding further meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one campaign by Yandex Id'), and explicitly lists the returned components (detail + strategy + excluded sites + negatives sample), distinguishing it from sibling tools like direct_get_strategy, direct_get_excluded_sites, and direct_get_negatives.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to retrieve a single campaign with associated strategy, exclusions, and negatives. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the composite nature is evident from the listed components and the presence of separate getter tools.

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