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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: nothing is read until the user taps the send button, and the output deliberately excludes creator names, answers, place and account. The waiting/shared status semantics add further behavioral detail.

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 content is dense and mostly earns its place, but it is front-loaded awkwardly with the link/token mechanics before the core purpose, and the Korean/English interleaving makes it harder to scan. It reads as one run-on block rather than a clearly structured description.

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 need not be spelled out, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description still covers the gating workflow, the two states, and the privacy boundary, leaving little an agent needs unaccounted for apart from token format details and sibling differentiation.

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% for the single token parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the token's role (obtained from the signed-in link, yields waiting then shared states), which is more than the schema provides, but it never clarifies format, lifetime, or what null/omitted token returns beyond the link.

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?

It states the resource (a brand's campaign board) and the aggregated payload (submissions by format, verdicts, posts, view medians at 3/7/21 days), so an agent can infer what comes back. But there is no clean verb, and the purpose is entangled with a two-phase link/token flow, making it harder to parse than a direct 'retrieves X' statement. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like shorti_campaigns_for_me or shorti_campaign_draft.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance: call it with no argument to get a link the brand opens signed in, then call with the token once the user taps the send button. It also explains the two response states (waiting then shared), which tells the agent exactly how to sequence calls. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools for related tasks.

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