campaign_status_reason_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own—no mention of what the returned reasons look like, whether a campaign with normal status yields an empty result, or any auth/scoping notes.

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 arguably too terse rather than padded, so it earns good marks for efficiency but not the top score for informativeness.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a diagnostic tool an agent may hesitate without any hint about when the status-reason data is meaningful, leaving a modest gap.

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 all three parameters (profile, campaignId, adAccountId) are documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no extra meaning such as ID format or where to obtain them, which is the expected baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('App Store campaign limited-status reason details'), so an agent can tell this fetches the explanation behind a campaign's limited status. It does not explicitly differentiate from near siblings like campaign_get or app_rejection_reason_get, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus campaign_get or other campaign-diagnostic tools, and no stated preconditions beyond the required IDs. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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