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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that missing receipts remain unresolved and that no request input, job payload, or new work is returned, clarifying output boundaries and edge-case behavior.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with no filler, and the core constraint is front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate, though the cryptic phrasing limits usefulness more than it preserves conciseness.

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 fully explained. But for a tool with three required identifiers and a large command enum, the description leaves input semantics and usage conditions under-specified, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for three required parameters, including a 30-value command enum, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what id, target_id, or command individually mean or how they relate to the 'original campaign command' and 'workflow authority.'

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 says it resolves 'the outcome of your original campaign command under its current workflow authority,' but 'resolve' and 'workflow authority' are obscure and the tool's exact purpose is not concrete. It does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings such as jobs_get or campaigns_get.

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?

There is limited implied usage: it applies to the original campaign command and notes that missing receipts remain unresolved. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives, and an agent would need to infer when this is preferable to jobs_get or campaigns_get.

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