ghl_email_get_workflow_campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which convey the key behavioral traits. The description adds endpoint details and OAuth scopes but does not contradict or significantly extend beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise with three lines: purpose, endpoint, and OAuth scopes. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention the return value structure or format. While a read tool returning a campaign object is implied, the lack of return value description leaves the agent uncertain about what data to expect.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with simple descriptions ('Campaign ID', 'Location ID'). The description's endpoint URL reinforces parameter roles, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Get Workflow Campaign by ID' and 'Get a single workflow campaign by its ID', specifying the action (get) and resource (workflow campaign by ID). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ghl_email_get_campaign (for regular campaigns) and ghl_email_list_workflow_campaigns (for listing).

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 purpose is clearly contextualized as retrieving a single workflow campaign by ID, but the description does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or compare with alternatives. However, the sibling tool names are distinct enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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