Get Campaign Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the title. It does not mention how the response is structured, how response_format affects output, or any error or edge-case behavior.

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?

The first sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the 'Args' block largely duplicates the schema's existing parameter description and omits response_format. It is not harmful, but it does not add enough value to warrant a higher score.

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 get-by-ID operation, the annotations and full schema coverage provide a reasonable baseline. However, the description does not clarify what 'detailed information' includes, does not explain when to use response_format='json' versus 'markdown', and there is no output schema to compensate.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description only restates campaign_id without adding new semantic detail, and it omits any mention of response_format despite that parameter existing in 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 clear verb and resource: 'Gets detailed information about a specific campaign.' This distinguishes it from list-style tools like meta_list_campaigns and from analytics tools like meta_get_campaign_insights, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as meta_get_campaign_insights or meta_list_campaigns. It only implies that a specific campaign_id is needed, and provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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