Get a campaign simulation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: required scopes (campaigns:read, luca:read), data sensitivity of full_content, and the note that idempotency is not required. It does not describe pagination or trace format, but the output schema exists.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the remaining lines are compact metadata (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace override). 'Does not require idempotency' is somewhat redundant against idempotentHint=true but otherwise the text is efficient and well-organized.

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 an output schema is present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers auth scopes, data sensitivity, idempotency, and workspace override. For a read-only GET tool this is close to complete; the only gap is the absence of routing guidance versus sibling list/create tools.

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 50%. The description adds meaning by mapping the URL path placeholders {id} and {simulationId} to the required parameters, and clarifies that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment default. However, it does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents for those two workspace fields, so it adds only modest value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a campaign simulation run with trace') and the singular form distinguishes it from the sibling luca_campaigns_simulations_list. It does not name siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus luca_campaigns_simulations_list or luca_campaigns_simulations_create. The only contextual instruction ('Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace') is parameter usage, not when-to-use guidance.

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