Get campaign progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description adds nothing there. What it does contribute is the shape of the response payload, but an output schema exists, making much of that enumeration redundant rather than additive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the returned fields grouped parenthetically; every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it. The only gap is failure behavior — nothing says what happens when the id is unknown or the campaign does not exist.

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 a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage (the schema documents the cmp_... id format), the schema carries the parameter burden entirely. The description never mentions the id argument, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Read a campaign") and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: status, progress, pause reason, and per-channel delivery stats. It is clearly distinguishable from sendkuy_list_campaigns by the singular resource, but it never names a sibling or states the by-id nature explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "Read" and the singular object; there is no explicit "use when" statement, no mention of when to prefer list_campaigns or control_campaign instead, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid cmp_ id.

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