get_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves detailed information and returns a JSON object, which is helpful. Yet it does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing campaign), permissions, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is sufficient but has clear gaps.

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 description is mostly concise and front-loaded, with the key purpose in the first line. The Args/Returns/Examples structure is clean. A minor redundancy exists between the first two sentences ('Get a single campaign' vs 'Retrieves detailed information'), but it's not excessive.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects) and the description explains purpose, parameter, return type, and gives an example. Since an output schema exists (though not shown), full return value documentation is not required. The main missing context is error handling and connection to sibling tools, but for its complexity this is nearly complete.

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 schema only provides the type (integer) and requirement; the description's Args section explains that campaign_id is 'The AgencyAnalytics campaign ID,' adding semantic meaning. Given the single parameter, this compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('campaign' or 'client') with a scope ('by ID'). It distinguishes from list_campaigns implicitly ('single' vs listing), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it doesn't earn 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 description implies use when you need one specific campaign by ID, and the example shows direct usage. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_campaigns for discovering IDs. Usage context is adequate but not fully articulated.

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