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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the scan scope, the rule dimensions it checks (stock, handling time), and that it returns recommended next steps with suggested phrasing — behavior an agent would not guess from the schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded with the "[Analysis]" tag and the core value proposition, followed by a dedicated usage sentence. The main clause is comma-heavy and long, but every element (facets, rule checks, next steps) carries information rather than padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return structure, yet it still summarizes what the analysis yields. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and annotations handling safety, an agent has everything needed to select and call this 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 100% on both parameters, including the account lookup source and the max_pages scan depth with its default. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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 description states a specific verb and resource — a one-pass analysis of campaigns together with the seller's own products — and enumerates the exact facets it returns (proposal windows, membership counts, gaps, rule-breaking offers). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like campaigns_list (enumeration) and campaigns_propose (action).

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 trigger phrases ("which campaigns am I in", "what should I join"), which tells the agent when to reach for it. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer campaigns_list or campaigns_propose instead, so routing against alternatives is left to inference.

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