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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact - the data comes from the same order records as the advertiser portal, implying a single source of truth - but says nothing about auth requirements, freshness, or latency.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb, resource and scope front-loaded; every clause ('creative review, scheduled dates, live fulfillment') earns its place by telling the agent what the response covers.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description covers the data source and the content domains. Only minor gaps remain, such as freshness or access prerequisites for a read of live fulfillment data.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents advertisementId, including its provenance ('returned by save_campaign_draft'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('campaign and booking progress'), then scopes it with 'including creative review, scheduled dates and live fulfillment.' An agent can distinguish it from adjacent siblings like get_campaign_delivery or preview_campaign_plan, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is obviously the status-read entry point, and 'same order records as the advertiser portal' hints it is the parity/diagnostic source. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing, so an agent must infer the boundary against get_campaign_delivery.

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