get_campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a pagination hint plus the limit range '1-100', which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it references 'members_next_offset', a field that appears nowhere in the input schema, which muddies rather than clarifies the pagination contract for the consumer.

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?

It is short and starts with the verb 'Read', which is good. But the two clauses are run together into a single garbled sentence whose second half ('membership page ... local outcomes') costs more comprehension than it buys.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Still, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and two required identifiers, the description omits the meaning of the required parameters and mentions an output-looking field ('members_next_offset') that isn't in the schema, so an agent lacks what it needs to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and only partially discharges it. It documents limit's range (1-100) and implies offset via 'next page', but account and campaign_id — both required — get no explanation at all. The reference to a non-existent 'members_next_offset' further confuses the pagination parameters.

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 does give a verb+resource ('Read this account's campaign'), which is enough to place it near siblings like get_campaign_summary and list_campaigns. But the second half ('a membership page') is unexplained and doesn't map onto any visible concept in the tool, leaving the actual scope fuzzy. It neither distinguishes itself from siblings nor states cleanly what object is returned.

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?

There is no indication of when to use get_campaign versus get_campaign_summary, list_campaigns, or create_campaign. No prerequisites are stated (e.g. that campaign_id must come from list_campaigns). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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