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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the exact payload (answers, invitation cap, share link, privacy threshold, price) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and lists key return fields without extraneous words. The enumeration is slightly dense, but it remains an efficient and readable summary.

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 a full output schema and strong annotations, the high-level summary is largely sufficient for understanding the return content. The main gap is the absence of guidance for distinguishing this tool from the many campaign-related siblings, making the contextual picture incomplete for an agent.

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%; both apiKey and campaignId have clear descriptions with sources (create_account, launch_campaign/list_my_campaigns). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the full burden and baseline 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 description clearly identifies the resource (one campaign) and enumerates the specific status information returned: status, answers, invitations/cap, share link, privacy threshold, and price. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, so the distinction from get_campaign_details or get_campaign_results is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'One campaign' implies this is for a single-campaign overview, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over get_campaign_details, get_campaign_results, or list_campaigns. With many similar siblings, the lack of alternatives or exclusions leaves selection to inference.

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