get_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read/retrieval operation and that include=[serving_issues] influences the response. However, it omits any details about response shape beyond the ID, error conditions, permissions, or side effects (even if none).

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?

Three short sentences, no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key optional behavior and a workflow hint. Each sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 single-resource GET with a required ID and two optional parameters, the description captures the essence: what it fetches, how to request delivery-problem details, and how to use the result. The absence of an output schema makes the brief mention of 'Returned id' useful, though more detail about other returned fields would improve completeness.

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% for all three parameters, providing the baseline. The description adds valuable semantic meaning to the include parameter by explaining its purpose ('audit delivery problems'), which is not present in the schema's bare 'Optional includes.' For campaign_id and ad_account_id, the schema already describes their purpose adequately.

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 clear verb plus resource: 'Get a single campaign by ID.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list_campaigns (plural) and create/update/activate campaign tools without needing to open 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?

The description gives functional context—using the include parameter for auditing delivery problems and using the returned ID for ad group creation—but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with list_campaigns or states when not to use it. The 'single campaign by ID' phrasing implies the appropriate use case, but no alternatives are named.

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