Campaign status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that the value is 'live' and suitable for polling, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about freshness, cost of repeated calls, or what happens with an invalid or finished campaign id.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the polling instruction second. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming example status values a caller might receive. It does not describe the shape of the response beyond that, but for a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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% and the single campaign_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'by id', adding no format or source-of-id guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and lookup key: live status of a campaign by id, with concrete example values (running/stopped). It is distinguishable from siblings like campaign_summary and campaign_result by the word 'status', though it never names them explicitly.

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 sentence 'Poll this while a campaign runs' gives a clear usage context: call it repeatedly during an active campaign. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or pointing to campaign_summary/campaign_result for other needs.

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