getCampaignDetails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only lists returned fields but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether special permissions are required, error handling (e.g., campaign not found), or any side effects. For a tool that likely performs a read, this omission is significant.

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 with zero filler. It immediately states the action and the specific information returned. 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?

The tool has a single required parameter and no output schema. The description lists the key fields returned, which gives some context, but it omits behavioral details (permissions, errors, pagination if any) and does not explain the difference from getCampaigns. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not complete; more context on when to use and expected behavior would improve it.

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%: the only parameter campaignId is described as 'Campaign ID' in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning, format, or constraints beyond that. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, baseline 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's purpose: 'Get extended campaign details' and enumerates specific fields (bid strategy, buying type, special ad categories, issues). This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from the sibling getCampaigns (likely basic listing) by the word 'extended' and the listed details.

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 extended campaign details but does not explicitly contrast with getCampaigns or any alternative. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance. The intended context is inferable from the 'extended' qualifier, but explicit exclusion or alternative routing is absent.

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