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

Annotations only set hints to false, so they provide little behavioral detail. The description adds meaningful context: the operation is reversible via the dashboard, requires authentication, and returns a campaign id. This exceeds the structured annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose, return value, reversibility, and authentication requirement. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains 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?

For a simple flat create operation with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: ownership, return value, reversibility, and auth requirement. Nothing critical 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 parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not need to add parameter details, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool creates a new outreach campaign and adds specifics: it is owned by the authenticated user and returns the new campaign id. The verb+resource is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_marketing_campaign or create_outreach_pitch.

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?

The description implies when to use it: when a user wants to create an outreach campaign owned by themselves. It does not state when to prefer an alternative or mention exclusions, so the routing guidance is only implicit.

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