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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behaviour: the enumerated set of possible finding codes and the non-obvious semantics that an empty list is a success signal rather than an error. It does not say what happens for an invalid or deleted campaign_id, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the enumeration and the empty-list rule; nothing is redundant. The comma-separated code list is dense but each token is load-bearing information an agent would otherwise have to discover at runtime.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (a list of named blocker codes) and how to interpret the empty case. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret it correctly is missing.

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% with one required parameter, so the schema supplies only a type and no meaning. The description's phrase 'between a campaign and going live' implies the parameter selects a campaign, but it never names campaign_id, its format, or where the ID comes from, so compensation for the coverage gap is partial at best.

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?

The description gives a concrete verb (list) and a concrete resource (what stands between a campaign and going live), then enumerates the exact blocker codes returned. That is far more specific than the title alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_broadcast_readiness, which has a near-identical shape, so an agent must infer the campaign-vs-broadcast split from the name.

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 clause 'An empty list means it can go live now' implies a pre-launch pre-flight check, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus get_campaign, get_campaign_draft, or get_broadcast_readiness, and no mention of prerequisites such as the campaign needing to exist or be in draft.

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