get_campaign_details

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 requests a fixed set of fields and notes the availability of other Meta API fields, setting expectations about data completeness. It also explains access_token fallback behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, pagination, or the exact return envelope, leaving some behavioral 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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a useful note about field limitations, and an Args list. The note about modifying the 'fields' parameter in code is slightly tangential for an AI agent but still relevant. It is not overly verbose and each section earns its place.

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 simple read-only nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the limited field set, covers both parameters, and notes token caching. However, it lacks explicit guidance on how this tool fits with sibling tools, such as when to prefer get_campaign_details over get_campaigns, which would elevate 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines campaign_id as 'Meta Ads campaign ID' and access_token as 'Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided),' adding real semantic meaning not present in the schema. This explains both the purpose and optionality clearly, though it could add constraints like format validation.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific campaign.' The word 'specific' explicitly distinguishes it from sibling get_campaigns, which would list campaigns. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when you need details for a specific campaign) and emphasizes 'specific,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. No mention of sibling tools like get_campaigns or update_campaign leaves usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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