reach_getCampaignDetailsV1

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

The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but the safe nature of a GET operation is implicitly understood.

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 contains a redundant second sentence: 'This describes how the campaign was set up and how far it has got.' This rephrases information already conveyed in the first sentence, adding no value and making the description less concise than it could be.

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?

The description covers the core information needed: what the tool retrieves (campaign details) and what it does not (engagement statistics). It provides a clear alternative endpoint for the missing data. For a simple GET operation with two parameters, this is largely complete, though it could mention output format or potential errors.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters ('Profile uuid' and 'Campaign uuid'), so schema coverage is high. However, the tool description adds no additional context about the meaning or purpose of these identifiers beyond what is already present in the schema, keeping the parameter semantics at baseline.

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 that the tool retrieves a single campaign and lists specific details it returns (sender, subject, template reference, targeting, delivery progress). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly mentioning that opens, clicks, and unsubscribes are handled by the campaign statistics endpoint.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: when you need campaign setup and delivery details. It also explicitly directs users to the campaign statistics endpoint for engagement metrics, effectively communicating when not to use this tool.

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