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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the readiness-blocker gating logic, the status field's role in choosing an edit path, and the fact that this is a snapshot rather than a detailed sequence or performance view. No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields.

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 dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: contents, gating precondition, and sibling routing. The most important constraint (readiness before launch) is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers return contents, the readiness/blocker contract, and how the result drives downstream tool choice. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the response.

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% and both parameters (campaignId, includeFlow) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource ('Everything about one campaign') and enumerates exactly what is returned: settings, schedule, limits, attached accounts, lead source, counters, flow outline. It explicitly distinguishes itself from flow_get, analytics_campaign, and lead_list, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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 explicit when-to-use ('call before changing anything'), a hard precondition ('_readiness.blockers must be empty before campaign_launch'), and conditional routing based on `status` (flow_set for DRAFTED, sequence_update for ACTIVE/PAUSED). Alternatives are named with the conditions that select them.

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