get_flash_price_campaign_detail

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying API call GET /v1/flash_price_campaigns/{campaign_id}, which implies a read-only operation, and outlines the return structure with specific fields. It does not detail auth requirements or error behavior, but for a simple detail getter, the description adequately communicates its behavior.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-line summary followed by focused sections for purpose, API endpoint, and return structure. Every section adds value, and the text is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the exact API call, and the return fields list. It does not discuss possible errors or authentication, but these are less critical for a straightforward read operation. The description is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter campaign_id, which already explains that it is the ID returned by list_flash_price_campaigns. The description only references 'known campaign_id' without adding further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets 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 immediately states '取得單一快閃價格活動的完整詳情' (get complete details of a single flash price campaign), with a clear verb (get), resource (flash price campaign), and scope (single, full details). It further elaborates on querying discount rules, products, and time settings, and its distinction from the sibling list_flash_price_campaigns is evident through '單一' and '已知 campaign_id'.

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 provides clear usage context: '適合在已知 campaign_id 的情況下取得所有欄位' (suitable when campaign_id is known to get all fields). This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_flash_price_campaigns first'), though this is implied by the parameter description in the schema.

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