Get campaign

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context (body, lists, send statistics) but does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or behavior when the id is not found.

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 wasted words. It states the resource, lookup key, and returned payload 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?

For a simple read-only lookup with one required id, the description is nearly complete: it explains the lookup and what the response includes. It does not cover not-found behavior, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema coverage is 0%. The description confirms that 'id' is a campaign identifier, which is marginally useful, but it does not explain the id's origin or format beyond what the field name and integer schema already imply.

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 that this retrieves a single campaign by id, and it names the returned content (body, lists, send statistics). It distinguishes itself from campaigns_search by the singular, id-based scope, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you have a campaign id and need the full campaign record. However, the description does not explicitly contrast this with campaigns_search or state when not to use it.

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