mailchimp_get_campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what fields are returned, whether the call requires an authenticated API key scope, or what happens on an invalid ID (404 vs empty result), so it fails to earn credit beyond the structured data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and lookup key all appear immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a 'campaign detail' payload contains, and it does not say. For a simple two-parameter read with full annotation coverage this is passable, but the return shape and auth expectation remain unstated.

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 100% and both parameters (api_key, campaign_id) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by ID' phrasing reinforces campaign_id but adds no format, length, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a specific Mailchimp campaign') and scopes it by ID, which clearly separates it from list-style siblings such as mailchimp_list_campaigns. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The use case is implied by 'by ID' — the agent needs a known campaign_id, and presumably must call mailchimp_list_campaigns first to obtain one — but neither the prerequisite nor any exclusion is stated. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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