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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description goes further with operationally useful behavior: body text is stripped of HTML, {{firstName}}-style placeholders survive, text is truncated per max_chars. It omits any note on rate limits, permissions or failure behavior for an invalid campaign_id, which keeps it from 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but a large share of the text enumerates return fields (index, step, type, delay_days, subject, ab_test, body, conditions, parent_sequence_id) that the existing output schema already documents. The genuinely actionable parameter guidance is compressed into the tail, so signal density suffers.

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 read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what a sequence level means, how branches relate via parent_sequence_id, and how to slim the payload. Only campaign_id's origin and error behavior are left unaddressed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: include_body, max_chars (with a 100–10000 range), and workspace (slug, optional when only one workspace) all get real meaning. campaign_id is only implied through "Sequenz einer lemlist-Kampagne" with no format or provenance hint, which is the one gap.

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 "Sequenz einer lemlist-Kampagne lesen" gives a precise verb+resource, and the read verb cleanly separates it from the lemlist_add/update/delete_sequence_step siblings. It never explicitly names an alternative read tool (lemlist_list_campaigns) or states how it differs, so it stops just short of full sibling disambiguation.

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 conditions are present but parameter-oriented: include_body=False returns only subject lines, max_chars truncates, workspace is optional with a single workspace. There is no explicit "use this when you need X instead of Y" guidance, so the agent must infer when to reach for this tool versus lemlist_list_campaigns or the step-mutation siblings.

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