growsurf_get_campaign_emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns the full object with every field, the same shape as on update, and defaults to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the default parameter behavior is stated efficiently. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core action, the default parameter, and the update pairing shape. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% for the single parameter, but the description adds meaning: it explains the default behavior (GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID) and the scenario of passing the id from growsurf_create_campaign. This enriches the schema and helps the agent select the right value.

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 function: 'Fetch the Emails tab configuration for your GrowSurf program (participant and admin email templates and settings).' It is specific about the resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like growsurf_get_campaign (general config) and growsurf_update_campaign_emails (mutation). The mention of 'Emails tab' makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context: it fetches email configuration and returns the exact shape used in updates, implicitly pairing with update_campaign_emails. It also explains the default campaign ID behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool, though the context strongly implies it.

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