get_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned data (sequence, schedule, settings), which is real value with no output schema present, but says nothing about permissions, behavior on an unknown id, or error cases for a read tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb leads and every clause adds information about the returned payload.

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 one-parameter getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and returned content adequately. The remaining gap is what happens when the id doesn't resolve, which is 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?

One parameter (id) at 0% schema description coverage; the description never mentions it. It is a self-evident campaign identifier in context, but no format (string vs numeric, UUID) or failure behavior on a bad id is given, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Clear verb+resource ("Get a campaign") plus the payload it returns (sequence, schedule, settings), which quietly distinguishes it from siblings like get_campaign_stats and get_campaign_analytics. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the returned-content hint makes the scope legible.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_campaign_stats, get_campaign_analytics, list_campaigns, or update_campaign. The agent must infer that this is the single-campaign configuration fetch from the name alone.

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