Get a managed service campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload includes budget, targets, state and progress, which is genuine value, but says nothing about what happens when the id is unknown or whether the result is a snapshot vs live progress.

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 no filler; the usage trigger and the returned content are both packed in without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe the return shape, and it only lists four field areas without structure or nesting. For a one-parameter getter with annotations covering safety, it is close to adequate but missing the id-to-result relationship and error behavior.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must carry the load. 'One managed service campaign' implies the id identifies a campaign, but it never says the id is the campaign identifier, nor its format or where to obtain it (e.g. from the list tool).

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 resource ('one managed service campaign') and scope ('in full'), and the word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the list sibling. It never names growwer_list_managed_service_campaigns or growwer_get_managed_service_proposals_summary explicitly, so sibling 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 phrase 'Use this when you need one ... in full' gives a usable trigger condition and hints at single-vs-list usage. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to the list tool or the proposals tools as alternatives, leaving routing to inference from the tool name.

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