ghl_affiliate_get_campaign

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the HTTP endpoint, version header, and the Sub-Account token requirement plus OAuth scope 'affiliate-manager.readonly'. It does not discuss response shape, but for a simple GET that is a minor gap.

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?

Purpose is stated first, followed by endpoint and auth metadata in compact lines. The source-file reference is marginally extraneous but the overall structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 two-parameter read-only GET with no output schema, the definition supplies purpose, endpoint, auth requirements, and scopes. The only real gap is that it says nothing about the returned campaign object, though that is a modest omission for this tool type.

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% and both parameters carry examples, so the schema already documents them. The description only restates that lookup is by id and scoped to a location, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Retrieve a single affiliate campaign by id for a location'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool ghl_affiliate_list_campaigns. The single-item scope is explicit, though it doesn't name the list sibling by name.

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 word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list operation, and the required location/campaign ids imply pre-existing knowledge of those identifiers. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement naming alternatives.

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