campaign_get_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content (fundraising progress, organization details, timeline, features) and hints at reliability needs via timeout/retries. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements, error handling, or invalid slug behavior, which would be useful.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return summary, no redundant phrasing. Each sentence serves a distinct function: what, what returns, when and how to use.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers return content, usage, and parameters well. It lacks notes on errors or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it's 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds an example slug and explains the purpose of timeout/retries for reliability, but this is marginal beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieves' and the specific resource 'donation campaign from Amanahfy by campaign slug'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ip_get_details by focusing on campaigns, making the purpose 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?

It explicitly says 'Use this tool to get current information about active fundraising campaigns', providing clear usage context. It doesn't mention alternatives, but the sibling is obviously for IP details, so no confusion exists.

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