Get campaign details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the response covers campaign setup and delivery progress, while excluding engagement metrics. It does not describe the full response envelope, but the field list compensates.

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?

Two concise sentences carry all the essential information: the operation, the returned attributes, the semantic scope, and a redirect to another endpoint. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 detail endpoint, the description names the target object, the main data fields, and the companion endpoint for metrics. It could be slightly more explicit about the response shape, but the listed fields largely cover what an agent needs.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the schema descriptions are merely 'Profile uuid parameter' and 'Campaign uuid parameter,' which are minimally informative. Still, for a detail lookup, the two identifiers are self-evident.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Get a single campaign.' It specifies what is included (sender, subject, template reference, targeting, delivery progress), which clearly distinguishes it from listing campaigns and from the campaign statistics/performance endpoint.

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 description explicitly states that opens, clicks, and unsubscribes should be retrieved from the campaign statistics endpoint, providing a clear when-not-to-use signal. It does not explicitly name the list endpoint as an alternative, but 'single campaign' makes the contrast with listing obvious.

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