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

Annotations cover the safety profile (openWorldHint, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds materially new behavior: imported campaigns land as DRAFTS, nothing sends until manually launched, and the call is asynchronous returning a job id. It does not call out duplicate-import risk on re-invocation, which the non-idempotent hint implies.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the safety-relevant draft behavior, then the async return. No filler.

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 one-parameter import tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite credential, side effects (drafts only), and execution model (background job with id). Everything an agent needs to call and interpret the result is present.

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% and the single parameter (instantlyApiKey) already documents where to find the key, matching the description's mention. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 verb (Imports) and resources (Instantly.ai campaigns and leads) with the destination system (Emailchaser) named. This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like list_instantly_accounts.

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 clear context for when to invoke it (bringing Instantly data into Emailchaser, requiring an API key) and sets expectations about the draft-review workflow. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls 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.