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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the tool is meant for polling and returns status about user actions (opened, signed in, paid). However, it does not describe side effects, idempotency, or rate limits. While adequate, it could be more transparent about safe repeated calls.

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: first states purpose and details, second gives usage guidance. No filler words, front-loaded with action and resource. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema present) and sibling tools, the description completely covers what the tool does, when to poll, and what outcomes to expect. No gaps for an agent to select or invoke it 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 100% (one parameter with schema description). The description adds value by specifying that draftId is the one 'returned by create_campaign_draft', providing origin context beyond the schema. This enhances understanding of how to obtain the identifier.

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 the tool checks the status of a campaign draft (opened link, signed in, paid). It uses a specific verb 'check' and resource 'campaign draft status'. It distinguishes from siblings: create_campaign_draft (creates) and estimate_campaign (estimates), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Poll this instead of asking the user to report back', indicating when to use (after creation, via polling). It implies not to rely on user reports but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use. The context is clear enough for correct selection.

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