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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the real behavioral content — this is an asynchronous job whose state machine is pending/ready/failed. The failed case is noted as carrying an error. It does not mention draft expiry, whether reading consumes or deletes the draft, or how long a pending draft typically takes, which would be the remaining useful disclosures.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the state model, then the downstream handoff. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations and no sentence is wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so by naming the three possible states and what each contains (a result or an error). That is enough for an agent to branch correctly. Missing are details on polling frequency, expiration, and whether the draft remains available after create_campaign.

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 is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema leaves campaign_draft_id entirely undocumented. The description partially compensates by tracing the id back to draft_campaign, telling the agent where the value originates, but says nothing about its format or lifetime.

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 ('Read a draft') and ties it to the sibling that produces it ('started with draft_campaign'), which separates it from get_campaign and create_campaign. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the draft-versus-campaign distinction is inferable from the wording.

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 description encodes the polling workflow directly: call it while the state is 'pending', and once 'ready' pass the result to create_campaign. That is clear when-to-use guidance with a named next tool. It lacks an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion or retry/polling cadence advice.

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