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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive local write, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations can't convey: the effect is internal bookkeeping for earnings tracking, the brand submission is out of scope, and the reply contains a link to the campaign page. It stops short of saying what happens on a repeat track (idempotency consequences) or on invalid clip/campaign ids.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first declares the action and its payoff, the second preempts the most likely misinterpretation. No filler, and the most important scoping fact is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter tracking tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and the key misconception. The only minor gap is failure/duplicate-tracking behavior, which matters given the idempotentHint but is not critical to call it 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 100%, so all three parameters (including post_url's fallback behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as what values campaign_id must come from or how post_url is validated, so it sits at the baseline for a fully-described schema.

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 (records a posted clip's submission to a clipping campaign) and immediately scopes the effect: earnings/views tracking, not brand submission. The contrast with the campaign page plus the cross-reference to get_earnings makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_campaign or schedule_post.

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?

Gives a clear use context (after a clip is posted, to enable earnings tracking) and an explicit exclusion: this does not submit to the brand, which happens on the campaign's own page. It doesn't name which sibling to call first to obtain campaign_id beyond the implicit list_campaigns reference in the schema, so it stops short of full routing.

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