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

The trailing 'Nothing is written' corroborates the readOnly/idempotent annotations rather than contradicting them, and the description adds the scoring behavior (3/2 points, 2+ fits) beyond structured data. However it omits what is actually returned or how the first-three selection works.

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?

It is a single run-on sentence stacking nested clauses, backticks and parentheticals, so it is hard to parse despite being short. The core action is front-loaded, but every subsequent clause is jargon that resists comprehension.

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 described, but for a tool with 0% schema coverage and opaque terminology, the agent is missing parameter meaning and usage routing. The description is too cryptic to call the tool correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it never explains the two params directly. It hints at a product-line concept in Korean/English and a limit via 'first three', but neither `product` nor `limit` is defined in terms an agent can act on.

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 opening clause 'Start a campaign (체험단) from a product line' gives a clear verb+resource, but the rest of the sentence dissolves into unexplained jargon (`draft.v0`, `compose`, scoring rules) that obscures what the tool actually produces. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like shorti_campaign_board or shorti_campaigns_for_me.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the campaign siblings, nor any prerequisite (the mention of a signed-in brand is buried and ambiguous). Conditions for selecting it over shorti_campaign_board are left entirely to inference.

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