fcrm get campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: the required capability (fcrm_read_emails or fcrm_manage_emails), the enforcing policy (CampaignPolicy::verifyRequest()), and that templates and server time are returned. This auth/policy disclosure is genuine value beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter behavior, then the auth requirement. Reasonably sized, though the policy/capability block reads as boilerplate that slightly dilutes the core sentence.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema documentation, the description is nearly complete; it even sketches the return payload (templates, server time). No output schema exists but the description covers the salient return content adequately.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description restates the `with` and `viewCampaign` behavior (paginated emails vs standard response) but adds no syntax, format, or accepted-value detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Retrieve a single campaign by ID'), which distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling fcrm_list_campaigns by scoping to a single record. However, it never names the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred 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?

Usage is implied by the 'by ID' framing and the conditional behavior of `with`/`viewCampaign`, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor any statement about when to prefer this over fcrm_list_campaigns or fcrm_campaign_stats.

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