Get a campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: required scopes (campaigns:read, luca:read), data sensitivity (redacted), the idempotency-key posture, and the workspace-override behavior. Not a 5 only because it omits anything about error/not-found behavior or payload shape.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining lines are compact operational metadata rather than filler. The trailing endpoint/scope lines are denser boilerplate than prose, but each carries a distinct fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. With that covered, the description supplies the auth scope, sensitivity, idempotency posture, and workspace-resolution rules an agent needs to invoke this correctly. Nothing material is missing for a single-record read.

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 67% and the schema itself documents both workspace parameters. The description adds meaning the schema does not: that workspaceId/workspaceSlug exist to override the environment-configured default workspace, which tells the agent when to supply them. The required id parameter gets no extra prose from the description.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource and even specifies the returned artifacts: 'Get campaign draft and latest published version.' That is well beyond a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-neighbors such as luca_campaigns_versions_list or luca_campaigns_list, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the operational notes (scopes, idempotency), and the last sentence gives a concrete override instruction for workspaceId/workspaceSlug. But there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus luca_campaigns_list or luca_campaigns_versions_list, and no exclusions.

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