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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the payload includes an account-scoped clip list ("the clips this account already submitted to it"), which tells the agent results are user-specific rather than global. It omits any not-found/error or pagination behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence opens with the verb and resource, then lists payload contents compactly. The field enumeration is long but each item earns its place by compensating for the missing output schema; only minor tightening is possible.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, key returned fields and account scoping, which is enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps (output shape details, unknown-id behavior) are minor.

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 100% and the single campaign_id parameter is documented in the schema as coming from list_campaigns. The description body adds no further parameter semantics (no id format, no behavior on unknown ids), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Returns one clipping campaign's details") and enumerates the returned fields (pay per 1,000 views, cap per clip, platforms, requirements, budget left, end date, page) plus the account's submitted clips. This clearly distinguishes it from list_campaigns (many) and track_campaign_submission (submission status).

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?

Usage context is clear: fetch a single campaign by id, and the schema note "The campaign_id from list_campaigns" establishes the list-then-get workflow. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to track_campaign_submission for submission-focused queries, so it falls short of a 5.

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