get_campaign_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool gets information (implying a read operation) and notes that the access_token is optional (using cached token). However, it does not disclose rate limits, error conditions, or the exact behavior when the token is missing. Additional details about the optional token behavior help but could be more thorough.

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 relatively concise but includes a verbose note about Meta API fields and code modifications. This adds useful context but sacrifices brevity. The key information is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the note could be streamlined.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the basic functionality. It explains the parameters and the optional token behavior. The hint about adding fields is a bonus. However, it does not mention pagination or response structure, but the output schema may cover that.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that campaign_id is a Meta Ads campaign ID and access_token is optional with caching behavior. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema (which only specifies 'string' and 'null'). However, it does not describe constraints like ID format or token scope, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific campaign'. The tool name and description align well, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_campaigns' (list) and 'get_ad_details'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings, which would warrant 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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the function requests a specific set of fields and hints at extensibility, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_campaigns' (for listing) or update tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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