Кампания по ID

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (results may vary). The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (budget in RUB, status, dates, statistics), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence that concisely conveys the tool's purpose and key output fields. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the essential return fields. It does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid ID) but that is often implicit. The lack of output schema is compensated by describing output content.

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 100% with a clear description for campaign_id. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides detailed information (budget, status, dates, statistics) for a campaign by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like list_campaigns (which lists all campaigns) and update_campaign (which modifies). The verb 'get' is implicit but the resource and scope are clear.

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 use when needing campaign details by ID, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_campaigns. No 'when not to' guidance is provided, though the context is straightforward.

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