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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the 'saves nothing' claims largely restate them. However, the description does add value beyond annotations by disclosing the dual outcome: it either returns a built contract or a list of missing records, which is important behavioral information with no output schema present.

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?

It is short and mostly front-loaded, but it wastes a sentence by saying 'saves nothing' twice ('Saves nothing and does not launch' / 'It saves nothing, so it can be repeated'), which is redundant phrasing rather than additional information.

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-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior and the alternate return case. It is still incomplete on what the 'contract' contains and on the required campaign identifier, so an agent cannot fully predict what it will get back or confirm which parameter drives the lookup.

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 0% and there are two parameters, one nested. The description never mentions the required 'id' or what the 'body' object carries; it only alludes vaguely to 'the campaign's saved records'. The schema is forced to carry all meaning for an undocumented nested parameter.

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 and resource ('Builds the versioned campaign contract') and describes the fallback output ('lists the records that are missing'), which distinguishes it from siblings like previewCampaign or createCampaign. The term 'contract' is domain jargon not explained, keeping it from a 5.

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 is implied rather than stated: 'that launch requires' and 'does not launch' suggest a preflight step before launching a campaign. It never names an explicit alternative (e.g. previewCampaign) or states when-not to use it, so the agent must infer placement in the workflow.

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