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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: no publication occurs, the snapshot's exact field set, the conditional rationale fields, and the 30-day public viewability of a resulting link. It stops short of stating auth or rate-limit expectations, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the 'publishes nothing' constraint, then details the payload and the downstream key. Dense but every clause carries information; only the snapshot field enumeration could be trimmed since the output schema exists.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, yet the description still outlines the snapshot contents and ties the output to create_shortlist, giving the agent enough to chain calls. Missing only edge details such as length limits and campaignId ownership semantics.

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 only 20% (includeRationale alone is documented), so the description carries most of the burden and does so reasonably: it pins leadIds to the 1–50 range, explains title as the campaign's name and note as the snapshot note, and restates includeRationale's effect. It omits the title/note length limits that the schema enforces, which keeps it below 5.

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?

States a specific verb ('Prepares a preview') and resource ('1–50 selected prospects from a campaign'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the write path by noting it 'publishes nothing'. An agent can tell this apart from create_shortlist and revoke_shortlist without opening either schema.

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?

Makes the preview→create workflow explicit by saying the result contains 'the previewKey that create_shortlist requires', and names revoke_shortlist as the undo path for the link that a later create produces. It doesn't spell out a when-not-to-use condition, but the create/preview split is unambiguous.

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