get_campaign_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool requests a 'specific set of fields' and notes the Meta API offers additional fields, which adds some behavioral context about data scope. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the token parameter, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: a clear purpose statement, a note on field behavior, and a parameter section. Every sentence adds value, though the note about additional fields could be more concise. It's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, performance). The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on usage and limitations would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'campaign_id' is explained as 'Meta Ads campaign ID', and 'access_token' is described as optional with caching behavior. This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID structure).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific campaign.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('campaign'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_campaigns' (plural) or 'get_ad_details' (different resource). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 implies usage context through the note about field selection and the optional access token, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_campaigns' for listing or 'get_ad_details' for ad-level info. Guidelines are implied rather than explicit.

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