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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds material beyond them: the plan-level 'Agents' permission requirement and the consequence that an attached agent 'answers real prospects by itself'. It does not cover return size, pagination, or default ordering for a list endpoint, which is the remaining behavioural gap.

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 resource, then the when-to-use routing, then the conceptual disambiguation. The agent/persona/knowledge-base sentence is useful for disambiguation but is the longest piece and could be trimmed; the rest earns its space.

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 no output schema, the description should imply what comes back; it hints at the list being inspectable via agent_get but never says the result contains agent IDs and types the caller can feed forward. Permissions, safety, and routing are all covered, so only the return-shape detail is missing.

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 each of the three parameters is documented in the schema, so the description adds little on this axis. It does gloss the semantics of two enum values (CHAT replies to prospects, CONTENT drafts posts) and never mentions withStats, so it neither clarifies nor misleads beyond the schema baseline.

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 identifies the resource and its scope ('AI agents configured for this account') and enumerates the sub-types (CHAT, CONTENT, others), so the agent knows exactly what set it is dealing with. It also separates the concept from neighbouring resources (personas, knowledge bases). The verb is only carried by the name/title rather than the description text, keeping it short of 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?

Explicit entry point is given ('Start here when the user asks about automated replies') along with the follow-up flow ('show them agent_get so they can judge the fit before anything is attached'). It also names the mutating sibling campaign_update and states an exclusion/caution ('never attach one unasked'), which is exactly the when-not guidance most definitions lack.

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