get_campaign_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing that this is a read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by listing the specific fields that will be returned, which helps the agent set expectations about the response. It does not discuss error behavior for invalid IDs, but that is a minor gap for a simple fetch-by-ID tool.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the scope, and the key output fields without any filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only single-resource lookup with two straightforward parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the input (campaign ID) and the expected return contents. The annotations cover safety, and the sibling list clarifies the niche. No critical information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both account and campaign_id documented directly in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond 'campaign by ID,' but the schema already carries the necessary semantics, so a baseline score of 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('full details for a single campaign by ID') and enumerates the fields returned: name, status, send_time, subject, preview text, channel, and message IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns, which lists campaigns rather than fetching one detail object.

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 clearly implies the usage context: use this when you have a specific campaign ID and need the full record for one campaign. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives such as list_campaigns for browsing, but the 'single campaign by ID' framing gives adequate contextual guidance.

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