run_seedrs_campaigns

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses this is a read-style retrieval ('Get'), enumerates the returned fields in detail (a real substitute for the missing output schema), and even notes the cost ('Flat 5 points per successful run'). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and failure behavior for bad slugs, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action and identifier format, then the return payload and cost. The field enumeration is long but earns its place by compensating for the absent output schema; there is little waste.

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-parameter get-by-identifier tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, input format, and a thorough list of returned data, so an agent knows what it will receive. Missing only peripheral details like auth or error handling.

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% and the single param is already documented with an example ('athena-ai'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by slug or URL' merely reinforces the accepted identifier formats without adding syntax or edge-case detail 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a Republic Europe/Seedrs campaign) scoped to a single record ('one campaign by slug or URL'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the run_seedrs_campaigns_search sibling. However, it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'by slug or URL' implies the caller must already have an identifier, hinting that a search step may be needed first, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. run_seedrs_campaigns_search). Usage is only implied.

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