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

The description discloses significant behavioral details beyond the annotations: it returns a run to poll, consumes credits with specific costs, supports optional scheduling with sequencing, requires the 'Allow posting' permission, and fails with a 402 upgrade message when credits are insufficient. This goes well beyond the generic hints and gives the agent concrete expectations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, lifecycle, costs, scheduling, auth, and failure mode are all covered without fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the supporting details appear in a logical order.

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?

For a tool with six parameters and no schema-level descriptions, this description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, how to track the result, what it costs, when scheduling happens, what permission is needed, and when it will fail. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for brief, scheduled_at, and platforms, and touches on asset_type through credit costs. However, it does not explain channel or timezone parameters at all, leaving some parameters semantically uncovered.

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 tool's action ('Create a Siren campaign') and the resource ('from a plain-language brief'), while also distinguishing it from related tools by framing it as the full pipeline (plan, copy, render, verify). It is specific enough that an agent can separate it from siblings like render_asset or schedule_post.

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 implies usage context: it is for the full campaign creation pipeline and instructs the agent to poll get_run afterward. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative tool (e.g., schedule_post for posting only, or render_asset for a single asset), so the when-not-to-use guidance is only implied.

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