Read one campaign

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the safety burden is lifted. The description still adds useful content-scope detail: this returns live counters (callsPlaced, callsCompleted, callsConnected) while report-style analytics live elsewhere. It doesn't mention auth, freshness, or pagination, so not a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the highest-value information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded before the routing hint. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by enumerating the counter fields. Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has what it needs, though the campaignId parameter and lookup-miss behavior remain unaddressed.

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 0% and the single campaignId parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does imply an ID-based lookup, and the parameter name is self-evident, but it adds no format or sourcing detail. Minimum viable.

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 names the exact resource and its contents ('a campaign's full settings and live counters'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_campaign_report, which the agent might otherwise confuse it with. An agent can pick the right tool without opening the 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?

It states the alternative by name and the condition that selects it: 'For outcomes/sentiment/the numbers it collected, use get_campaign_report instead.' That is an explicit when-to-use-this / when-to-use-the-other split.

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