ghl_ad_fb_campaign_get

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safe reading. The description adds endpoint and OAuth scope, providing authorization context. However, it does not elaborate on response structure, pagination, or rate limits. Since annotations cover most behavioral traits, description adds moderate value.

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 very concise: two short sentences plus technical details. Key information (what it does) is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or unnecessary text.

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?

Given that it is a simple read operation with idempotent and read-only annotations, the description covers the core functionality. It hints at return contents (linked entities). However, it could explicitly mention that it returns campaign details as well, but overall it's sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'linked adsets and ads' which relates to the 'fields' parameter, but it does not add new meaning or interactions beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and 'Retrieve' and the resource 'Facebook campaign with linked adsets and ads'. It distinguishes this read operation from sibling tools that mutate campaigns (delete, pause, duplicate, etc.) and other read tools like list or get without linked entities.

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 mentions retrieval of linked adsets and ads, which implies it should be used when those are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., a simple campaign get or list). There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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