ghl_email_get_bulk_action_campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the requirement for a Sub-Account (location) token and the specific OAuth scope emails/campaigns.readonly, plus the concrete endpoint version.

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 endpoint, auth, and scope lines are front-loaded and useful, but the first two lines restate each other and the title, costing one redundant sentence. Overall compact for the information conveyed.

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 two-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and rich annotations, nothing essential is missing; auth and scope details are a bonus. Only the lack of sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5.

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% and both parameters (locationId, campaignId) carry descriptions and examples, so the schema does the work. The description mentions that an ID is needed but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema — baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get a single bulk action campaign by its ID"), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ghl_email_list_bulk_action_campaigns or ghl_email_get_campaign, though 'single ... by its ID' implies a fetch-one vs. list distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'by ID' framing and the auth prerequisites (sub-account token, readonly scope), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over the list or campaign-get siblings. The agent can infer the context but must do so unaided.

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