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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only' is redundant but harmless. It adds genuine context beyond annotations by revealing the dual return shape and by disclosing the precondition that sequence_update only works on ACTIVE/PAUSED campaigns. Minor imprecision: it says the sequence comes back 'as both' forms, while the raw graph is actually gated behind includeRaw=false.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then how to use the node ids, then the read-then-write workflow order. 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?

There is no output schema, and the description does most of the work an agent needs: it explains the two return representations and how outline node ids feed downstream tools. It stops short of noting pagination/size limits or when includeRaw is worth the verbosity beyond the schema's own note.

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%, so both parameters (campaignId, includeRaw) are already fully documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's note that outline node ids are the ids used by sequence_leads_at_step and sequence_step_stats is useful cross-tool context, but it describes output rather than parameter meaning, and includeRaw is never mentioned here.

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+resource (fetch the saved sequence for a campaign) and names the two return forms (readable outline and raw React Flow graph). It is clearly distinguishable from flow_set and sequence_update, which are named as the write-side counterparts.

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 sequencing guidance: 'Read this before changing a sequence', then write with flow_set for any campaign or sequence_update for the copy, and only once the campaign is ACTIVE or PAUSED. When-to-use and when-to-use-the-alternative are both spelled out.

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