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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive value by enumerating what the analysis produces (grades, benchmark comparison, trends, list-level performance, ROI context, action plan) — meaningful since there is no output schema.

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 purpose and scope before the output enumeration, in a single dense sentence with no filler. The long list of outputs is justified because no output schema exists to convey them.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return contents and the count/cost parameters. It leaves only the batch-vs-single routing to the agent, which is a minor gap.

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 carry descriptions matching the text (default 5 / max 20, cost for ROI projections). The description restates rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (analyze) and resource (recent completed campaigns), plus the key scoping qualifier 'as a batch.' 'Batch' implicitly separates it from the single-campaign sibling analyze_campaign, though it never names that alternative outright.

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?

It gives clear operational context: default of 5 campaigns, up to 20 via count, and recent completed only. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' routing to analyze_campaign or compare_campaigns, so the agent must infer the batch-vs-single boundary.

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