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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important behavioral trait for this tool — that it performs no dialing/no side effects — which is genuinely useful given the neighboring start/pause/cancel tools. However, it says nothing about permissions, cost implications of the reserved amount, or whether repeated calls are idempotent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key outputs and the no-dialing caveat are packed into one clause. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description should work harder. It usefully previews the shape of the response (eligibility, exclusions, reserved cost), which partially compensates for the missing output schema, but the two required identifiers that scope the preview remain undefined.

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?

There are 2 required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only possible source of meaning and it offers none. It never explains that 'id' identifies the campaign to preview or what the 'workspaceId' scoping implies, leaving both UUIDs semantically opaque.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Inspect') and enumerates concrete outputs (eligible contacts, exclusion reasons, maximum reserved cost), which distinguishes it from siblings like campaigns_get and campaigns_list. It implies a per-campaign dry-run but never explicitly says it previews a campaign identified by 'id', so an agent must infer the resource being inspected.

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 'without dialing' implicitly routes the agent here instead of campaigns_start when the goal is to validate a run before executing it, but the alternative is never named and no explicit when/when-not condition is stated. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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