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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: pricing was charged at launch so no refund is issued, and closing twice changes nothing, which aligns with idempotentHint. It also reinforces the destructive nature by stating no more answers will be accepted.

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?

Four short, information-dense sentences cover the action, refund implications, automatic closing behavior, and idempotency. The main effect is front-loaded and no sentence is 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?

The description is complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool: it knows the effect, refund behavior, idempotency, and automatic alternatives. The schema covers parameters, and the output schema covers return expectations, so nothing necessary is missing.

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 schema already documents apiKey and campaignId fully. The description does not add parameter-level nuance beyond reference to the campaign lifecycle, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opening phrase 'Ends the campaign now: no more answers are accepted' is a specific verb plus resource with a clear behavioral outcome. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like launch_campaign or get_campaign.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: to end a campaign immediately and stop accepting answers. It also explains that campaigns close automatically at the cap or expiry, which gives the agent context for when manual closing is unnecessary. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the usage context is clear enough.

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