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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, non-open-world read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing what a poll returns (status, recently called tools, queue position, approval wait state) and by recommending a polling interval, which prevents hammering the endpoint. It does not describe failure modes for an invalid or finished job_id.

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?

One sentence covering the returned information, plus a short operational instruction on polling. The most useful content leads, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so adequately by listing the four things reported. For a simple single-parameter read tool with clear annotations, this is nearly complete; only the invalid/finished-job case is unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that job_id comes from start_campaign. The description adds no format, validity, or lifecycle detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 names a specific resource (a running campaign) and enumerates what the call reports: status, recently called tools, queue position, and pending human approval. That makes the tool's purpose concrete rather than tautological. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like answer_approval or abort_campaign, which are the natural next steps when an approval is pending.

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?

"Poll about every 20 seconds" gives a concrete cadence and implies the tool is for monitoring an already-started campaign. However, it never states when not to use it (e.g. after completion) nor points to answer_approval when the response indicates a waiting approval, leaving the agent to infer the follow-up action.

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