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

Annotations mark it non-idempotent and non-read-only but say nothing about failure behavior; the description fills that gap richly — pre-flight re-validation, aggregated problem return, restart of sending, 403 handling, and the explicit 'no retry' policy. This goes well beyond what the structured annotations disclose.

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?

Purpose and the inverse-tool relation are front-loaded, and every sentence carries operative guidance (refusal handling, 403 policy, diagnostic call). It is dense and slightly run-on, but nothing is padding.

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 correctly explains what a refusal returns (a full problem list) and how to behave on success vs. failure, and it covers auth/module prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents it as a UUID v4 campaign token. The description narrows it implicitly to a *paused* campaign, but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Resume a paused campaign') plus a precondition (recipient list complete), and explicitly names the inverse sibling pause_campaign. An agent can distinguish this from pause_sweepstakes/unpause_sweepstakes without opening any 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 and when-not-to-retry guidance: read the whole returned list back rather than retrying, and on a 403 'module not enabled' do not retry but escalate to Sweeppea support. It also names the correct diagnostic alternative (fetch_messaging_usage) for refused sends and states what that call distinguishes.

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