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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the "Read only" line is redundant. The one piece of added behavior, that omitting the parameter returns every platform, is useful but is also covered by the schema. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not additive.

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?

Front-loaded with the "Use this when" trigger, which is good, but the long comma-chained enumeration of seven return metrics bloats a single sentence and hurts readability. The metric list also overlaps with the existing output schema.

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 explain return values, and it covers purpose, trigger, and the optional-parameter behavior. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could state whether an unknown platform value errors.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is already documented as "One clipping platform, or leave out for all." The description's "One clipping platform, or every one when none is given" restates the schema rather than adding syntax or semantics, so baseline 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 resource (clipping platforms that list paid creator campaigns) and enumerates the metrics returned, so the agent can tell it apart from campaign-level siblings like compare_campaigns and top_alpha_now. The phrasing is a run-on sentence, but the verb+resource is clear.

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?

"Use this when the user compares the clipping platforms... or asks how one pays" gives an explicit trigger condition. It does not name when-not to use it or point at a specific alternative sibling, so it stops 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.