ads_campaign_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies a read via the word 'Get'. It says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist, whether an error or empty result is returned, or what the response contains. For a lookup tool this leaves the agent guessing at the failure path.

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 sentence with no filler, and the resource and keying constraint are front-loaded. Nothing in it is redundant.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no nesting, no annotations), so the bar is modest, but with no output schema the description should indicate what a successful lookup yields and what happens on a miss. As written, an agent can call it but cannot predict the result.

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 0%, and the schema only constrains campaign_id as a non-empty string. The phrase 'local id' usefully signals that this is an internal identifier rather than a platform-side campaign id, which is real added meaning, but format and sourcing of that id remain unspecified.

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 one campaign') and scopes it to a single record by local id, which implicitly separates it from ads_campaign_list. It stops short of naming the list sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential 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?

'By its local id' implies the precondition for using this tool (you already have an identifier), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as ads_campaign_list for the case where the id is unknown.

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