Campaign settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: single-call flat-record shape, currency of monetary values, the derived `widening_settings` composite, and `insights[]` naming affected campaigns. It also flags that omitted parameters widen the result to the whole account, which is the kind of behavioral nuance structured fields rarely convey.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then the return shape is enumerated efficiently. It is long-ish and spends a paragraph on return fields, but each clause carries information; the trailing API doc link is the only marginal sentence.

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?

Given an output schema and read-only annotations, the description still supplies the interpretive context an agent needs: what the settings actually mean (reach-widening flags), how `widening_settings` and `insights[]` are derived, and the currency convention. Nothing essential to correct invocation or interpretation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both `campaign_id` and `customer_id` (including the omitted-means-all semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond that, 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 verb and resource ('Read every setting that decides how far a Search campaign reaches') and scopes it to Search campaigns. It also positions itself against a sibling by noting it reports 'the AI Max state get_ai_max_settings reports', so an agent can distinguish it from get_ai_max_settings and get_campaign_performance without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a clear usage context ('Made for recurring audits: the same call every week diffs cleanly') and delineates scope ('one flat record per campaign', 'every non-removed Search campaign'). It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling such as get_campaign_performance or when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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