get_campaign

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'Read back a campaign in full.' Beyond annotations, it discloses exactly what will be returned and implies verification of persisted state, adding useful behavioral context.

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 tight sentences; the first front-loads the operation and scope, the second gives the intended usage. Every clause earns its place, with no filler.

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 simple read-only retrieval by two self-explanatory IDs, plus an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the operation, its timing after create_campaign, and its content scope. Nothing required 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain customer_id or campaign_id beyond the tool's general reference to 'campaign.' The property names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no parameter-level semantics or constraints to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Read back a campaign in full,' and enumerates distinct content areas: settings, targeting, ad groups, keywords, and responsive search ad assets. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_campaigns or preview_campaign without needing 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?

Explicitly frames the primary use case: 'Use this after create_campaign to verify what actually landed.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a sibling-rich toolset.

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