meta_ads_campaigns_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses that the tool is read-only, which is a key safety trait. It also describes specific return field additions and the behavior of issues_info (non-empty when status is WITH_ISSUES), adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 deliver the core purpose, return differences, read-only nature, and usage guidance without redundant filler. All sentences carry substantive value and are front-loaded with the primary action.

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 single-record fetch tool, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (same fields as list plus specified extras) and when to use it. It does not enumerate all list fields, but references campaigns.list, and the lack of an output schema is partially compensated by this cross-reference. Minor omissions like error behavior are acceptable given the tool's 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, with both parameters (campaign_id and account_id) fully documented, including format and fallback behavior. The description adds minimal new parameter-specific info; it references campaign_id being 'already known' but does not expand beyond the schema's existing detail.

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 'Fetches the full detail record for a single campaign by ID', specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from list tools by noting it returns additional fields beyond campaigns.list, and names the specific sibling meta_ads_campaigns_list for discovery.

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?

Explicitly provides usage direction: 'Use this when a campaign_id is already known; for discovery use meta_ads_campaigns_list.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over the list alternative, satisfying the when/when-not criteria.

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