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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavior is that results come back as blocking checks with hints, which is useful but thin given an output schema exists.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core question ('can it launch') and then lists the checked surfaces. Zero filler and nothing to trim.

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 a full output schema and full annotation coverage, the description only needs to orient the caller, and it does — including a note that results are blocking checks with hints. It could still say more about ordering relative to launch_campaign, but nothing essential 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%: campaign_id is documented as coming from create_campaign and workspace_id explains its defaulting behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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 ('Check whether a campaign can launch') and enumerates the validated scope: sequence, contacts, attached mailboxes and warm-up. That is far more informative than the title alone, though it never names the sibling it complements (launch_campaign) or distinguishes itself from adjacent checks like check_domains or get_warmup_status.

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 phrase 'can launch' implies this is a pre-launch gate, which most agents will infer correctly. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or routing against the several overlapping check tools (check_domains, check_copy, get_warmup_status) that a caller must choose between.

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