growsurf_get_campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the fallback to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID when campaignId is omitted, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not describe response shape (provided by output schema) or any error conditions, so it adds moderate value only.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the targeting behavior is stated directly. Every word earns its place, making this an efficient and well-structured description.

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 the presence of an output schema (covering return details), annotations (read-only, idempotent), and a single optional parameter that is well-documented, the description covers the essential facts needed for correct invocation. It could mention that it fetches a single campaign (vs. list), but this is implied by the singular 'campaign' and the parameter naming, so the gap is minor.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage and includes a detailed description of campaignId, explaining its default behavior and use with id from create_campaign. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, but given the rich schema, the 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('campaign details'), and clarifies the targeting mechanism. It is clear that this retrieves a single campaign, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like growsurf_list_campaigns or the specialized getters (e.g., growsurf_get_campaign_design), which would warrant a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention situations where a different tool (like list_campaigns or get_campaign_design) would be more appropriate, nor does it describe prerequisites or context for using the default campaign ID. The parameter schema adds some context for the campaignId argument, but not for overall tool selection.

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