Campaign status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the live, pollable nature of the status and example values, but it does not describe the response shape, possible additional statuses, or polling expectations in more detail.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It opens with the core purpose, includes a concrete example, and closes with a practical usage directive. Every sentence 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?

For a simple single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and when to poll it. Minor gaps remain around exact returned values and behavior for edge cases, but these are not critical for a tool of this simplicity.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for campaign_id, and the description only restates that the ID identifies the campaign. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves the live status of a campaign by id and gives examples like running or stopped. It is clear about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as campaign_summary or campaign_result.

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 the tool: 'Poll this while a campaign runs.' This tells an agent the temporal context for invocation. However, it does not mention when not to use it or which sibling tool should be chosen instead.

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