Get campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful scope context — that the full record including audience configuration is returned — but says nothing about failure modes (e.g. behavior for an unknown id) or that responses are unsaved drafts versus sent campaigns.

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?

Four labelled, front-loaded blocks with zero filler; the actionable routing information (what it is, what it is not, what it returns, when to use it) is prioritized in that order. 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to describe the return payload (full campaign record plus audience configuration and status). For a single-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Campaign UUID'), so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema states.

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 verb (fetch) and resource (one campaign) and enumerates the fields returned (subject, body, sender, audience configuration, status). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling stats tool, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Contains both an explicit exclusion ('Not for: how it performed after sending — that is plunk_get_campaign_stats') and a positive use case ('Use when: reviewing a draft before sending, or checking who a campaign is configured to reach'). Nothing about when to pick this tool is left to inference.

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