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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavior beyond that: nothing is sent, the campaign remains a draft until reviewed, and it returns a campaign id plus a lead-finding job id when finding starts.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint ('Nothing sends'). Every sentence adds information: mode branches, the safety guarantee, and return values.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description documents the return shape (campaign id, optional lead-finding job id). Combined with 100% schema coverage of the nested sequence object and the annotation safety profile, an agent has what it needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the conditional relationship between the LinkedIn search and lead-finding: salesNavSearchUrl's presence/absence changes behavior, and lead finding only runs when the session payload is supplied.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Creates a DRAFT campaign from a sequence') and immediately scopes what it does not do ('Nothing sends — the campaign stays a draft'). This disambiguates it from the sibling launch_campaign, which presumably does send, despite the 'copilot_launch' name.

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 clearly explains the two operating modes: with a Sales Navigator search it starts lead finding; without one the draft holds only emails, and leads come from Lead Finder or CSV. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling create_campaign or when to call copilot_plan first, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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