campaign_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds only the 'current-state verification' nuance; it does not mention required profile/ad-account authorization or freshness/rate-limit behavior, so it provides modest incremental context.

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. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation, though 'current-state verification' is slightly vague and could be tightened.

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 is a simple single-resource read, an output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and the input schema is fully documented. The description is complete enough to call the tool correctly, with only the minor gap around ID-parameter disambiguation.

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 four parameters. The description says 'by ID' but does not clarify the relationship or precedence between the legacy 'id' and 'campaignId' parameters, which is the one ambiguity the schema leaves unresolved.

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: read one campaign by ID. This clearly contrasts with list-style siblings such as campaigns_query, but does not explicitly name the alternative or explain how it differs from campaign_report or campaign_audit.

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 'for current-state verification' implies a use case and context, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules and no named alternatives. An agent can infer this is the single-campaign lookup, but the guidance stops short of full routing.

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