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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the not-found fallback and the specific aggregates returned, but it does not describe the error/response shape or any potential pagination limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. The fallback guidance is placed efficiently after the primary action.

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 single-parameter read-only getter, this description is complete: it states what is returned, includes the not-found recovery path, and the annotations already cover the safety and idempotency profile. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that campaignId is a campaign identifier and tells the agent where to obtain valid IDs when the provided one is invalid. This adds practical meaning beyond the bare string 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a campaign by ID', and further specifies the returned data (lead list count, workflow count, ICP summary). This clearly distinguishes it from broader list tools like campaignstack_list_campaigns and other campaign getters such as get_campaign_metrics or get_campaign_topics.

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?

It gives explicit guidance for the not-found case, directing the agent to campaignstack_list_campaigns to find valid campaign IDs. It does not discuss when to prefer this over other campaign-related getters, but the primary usage is clear from the purpose.

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