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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates what the response contains and discloses a state-dependent condition (changed/expired facts need renewed review) that the agent should act on.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler, and the operation and its scope lead. The content list is slightly undifferentiated but every item earns its place as an indication of what comes back.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is routing context: against a large sibling set containing list_campaigns and get_ad_campaign, the description never clarifies which one an agent should pick, and it omits any prerequisite/auth context for a brand-scoped read.

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 0% and the description says nothing about brandId or campaignId. The schema does carry pattern/format constraints, so the identifiers are self-evident, but for a tool with two required parameters and zero descriptions the description should compensate with scoping or format guidance and does not.

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?

Clear retrieval verb ("Show") on a specific resource ("current campaign") with an enumeration of the returned content: destinations, assets, facts, publishing times, validation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as list_campaigns or get_ad_campaign, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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 second sentence implies a follow-up workflow ("Changed or expired facts require renewed review"), which hints at when this read matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many campaign-related siblings (list_campaigns, get_ad_campaign, prepare_campaign). Usage is only implied.

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