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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context: 'free' (no cost), safe to poll, and the transient 'processing' state with zero submissions immediately after launch. That post-launch state guidance is the kind of trait annotations cannot express, though return shape/pagination semantics are not covered.

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 what the tool produces, then the safety/cost note, then the interpretive caveat about 'processing', and finally accepted identifier forms. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information with no wasted phrasing.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (submission counts, live links, review states, winners), and it covers the 4-parameter surface via 100% schema coverage. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret a fresh-campaign result.

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 limit, offset, status, and campaign_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description's note that it accepts a UUID or public campaign number largely duplicates the campaign_id schema text and adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks; 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?

States a specific verb and resource and enumerates exactly what it returns (submission counts, live content links, approval/rejection state, winners), which is more than the name or title conveys. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_campaign_results by anchoring to 'content campaign' and tying to create_content_campaign.

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 clear usage context: use it to close the loop on create_content_campaign, it is safe to poll, and the 'processing' + zero-submissions state right after launch is expected rather than a failure. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a competing sibling to route to, so it stops short of a 5.

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