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

Despite readOnlyHint being present, the description adds significant behavioral detail: zero platform calls, severity levels (blocked/unsupported/degraded/ok), and the meaning of valid:false. It also explains behavior for unconnected platforms, going well beyond annotations.

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 purpose, then consequence, then parameter tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output categories, and actionable outcome (valid:false means refusals). Despite no output schema, it provides enough context for an agent to understand what to expect and why to use it.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds nuance for the 'platforms' parameter (validated even when unconnected) and reinforces the default behavior, adding value beyond the schema. No new meaning for campaign_id, but the increment is justified.

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 uses a specific verb ('pre-flight') and resource ('campaign') and clearly explains the tool evaluates campaigns against platform capability rules, returning structured findings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trigger_sync, which actually performs the sync.

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?

Explicitly states 'before syncing' and instructs to fix findings before trigger_sync, providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so slightly short of the strongest guidance.

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