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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: data returns exactly as stored in snake_case, the summary strings are not scoring criteria, no key is guaranteed present, and it explains how to interpret outreachTemplate personalization. This goes well beyond 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 detailed but every sentence contributes meaning: it explains the main purpose, the structure of the ICP, clarifies which fields drive scoring, warns about missing keys, and interprets the outreach template. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested ICP structure with critical/preferential rules), the description thoroughly explains the semantics and caveats. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to describe return values, but it explains how to interpret the data. Nothing an agent needs to decide when to call it or understand its output 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents campaignId with format and description. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra compensation needed since coverage is complete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one campaign's ICP - the ideal-customer profile... plus its outreach template and settings.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings that return leads or stats. The purpose is unambiguous.

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—when you need the ICP and outreach settings, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions where another sibling (e.g., get_campaign_leads) would be more appropriate. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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