get_affiliate_campaign_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a read-only GET request to a specific API endpoint and details the returned fields (id, title, status, commission_type, etc.). This is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool, though it does not mention error conditions or auth requirements.

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 with clear sections (Purpose, Usage, API Call, Return Structure). It is concise, with no filler, and each sentence adds value: purpose, when to use, what endpoint to call, and what the response contains.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It provides the API endpoint, usage context, and the full return structure, which is all an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including the note that campaign_id comes from list_affiliate_campaigns. The description adds little beyond restating the usage context ('已知 campaign_id'), so the schema does the heavy lifting, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb '取得' with a clear resource '單一聯盟行銷活動的完整詳情' (get full details of a single affiliate campaign). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_affiliate_campaigns (which lists campaigns) and get_affiliate_campaign_usage (which likely returns usage data).

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 explicitly states it is suitable when the campaign_id is already known and you need all fields, and it even references that the ID comes from list_affiliate_campaigns. This provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives.

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