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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that this reflects the site's *current* state, reinforcing freshness, but says nothing about auth, caching, or response shape.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the returned content and ends with the actionable cue 'Read this before changing anything.' Slightly ornate phrasing ('What this site is currently saying and to whom') costs a little precision but wastes no tokens.

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 compensates by naming the fields the agent will see (target page, pitch, drafts per run, quiet hours, send days), which is the main thing missing structurally. It could have gone further on how this relates to the change-planning siblings, but nothing critical is absent.

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% with a single well-documented workspaceId, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes no additional meaning about the identifier, which is the expected baseline when coverage is this high.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns — the linked page, the pitch, draft volume, quiet hours, sending days — so an agent can tell it reads this site's campaign settings. It never states a clean verb+resource ('Get the campaign settings') and identifies no sibling by name, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Read this before changing anything' gives one real usage condition and implicitly routes the agent toward a read-before-write flow. It does not name the siblings that perform changes (plan_campaign_change, apply_campaign_change) or say when this is not needed, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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