direct_get_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly says 'READ' and lists the data returned (BiddingStrategy, PriorityGoals, counters), making it clear this is a non-mutating read operation. It does not describe error cases or return format, but for a read-only tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 one concise sentence (12 words) that front-loads the read intent with 'READ:' and conveys the essential scope. Every word earns its place.

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 one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core elements: what is read, for which campaign, and the campaign type scope (Text/Unified). It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic behavior, though more detail on output structure could enhance completeness.

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 description must compensate. It implies that campaign_id identifies the campaign via 'for one campaign', but it does not explicitly state the parameter's role or any additional requirements. The single integer parameter is fairly self-explanatory, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool reads full BiddingStrategy, PriorityGoals, and counters for a single campaign. The 'READ:' prefix and specificity distinguish it from siblings like direct_get_campaign, which likely retrieves general campaign info.

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 implies usage for retrieving strategy-level details for a specific campaign, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of related tools like direct_get_campaign or direct_set_strategy. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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