get_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Read" communicates a safe, non-mutating operation, and the properties hint discloses that the response's richness depends on the parameter. However, it does not cover error behavior (e.g., not-found handling), the meaning of "basics" vs. "metrics," or what exactly happens when properties is omitted.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the optional parameter's purpose. No redundant language.

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 low-complexity tool — 2 params, one required, output schema present — the description is reasonably complete: it states the operation, the parameter needed, and how to get extended data. The output schema covers return structure. The main gaps are tool-selection guidance versus list_campaigns and examples of valid property values, but these are minor for this complexity level.

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 does add meaning to `properties` — the schema only says 'Properties' with an array-of-strings type, while the description explains it requests metrics beyond basics. However, `campaign_id` gets no semantic help (though self-evident), and the description never clarifies what string values `properties` accepts.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Read one campaign." The singular 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from list_campaigns, and the verb 'Read' separates it from create/update/duplicate siblings. However, it never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied 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?

The description implies usage context — you call this when you need a single campaign's details rather than a list — but it never states when to use this over list_campaigns or other siblings. The second sentence, "Pass `properties` for metrics beyond the basics," is param-level guidance, not tool-selection guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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