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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the asynchronous contract (returns immediately with status pending, must be polled), that it 'creates nothing by itself', and the shape of a ready draft. Annotations already flag idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not warn that repeated calls presumably generate separate drafts or that the AI call may have cost/latency implications. Strong, with one meaningful omission.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the read-back loop and output mapping. Every sentence carries information; the closing 'you do not need it' is borderline filler but functions as a usage exclusion, so it earns its place.

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 does the work of explaining the return value: pending status, ready/failed terminal states, and the concrete ready-draft fields (name, filter_groups, steps as html) that feed create_campaign. Missing only failure handling and whether polling stops on error, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 50%: prompt is documented in the schema, project_id is not. The description compensates for prompt by explaining what the brief must contain ('who it is for and what it should achieve'), which is real added meaning, but says nothing about project_id, leaving the undocumented half still undocumented.

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 the specific verb and resource ('Ask Sendocado's writer for a campaign draft from a brief') and immediately contrasts it with create_campaign, which it says the draft 'fits'. An agent can distinguish this from create_campaign and get_campaign_draft without opening a schema.

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 explicit when-to-use (you have a brief describing audience and goal), explicit follow-up procedure (poll get_campaign_draft every few seconds until ready or failed), and an explicit when-not (if you can write the emails yourself, you do not need it). Both the alternative and the exclusion condition are stated.

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