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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description details idempotency behavior (returns existing deliverable), rate limits (30/min), authentication scope (creator:submit), and tracking behavior for different URL types. This fully discloses the tool's operational characteristics and constraints.

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 dense but every sentence carries essential information: purpose, parameter guidance, idempotency, intended audience, rate limit, and auth requirement. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information (purpose) is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral details, rate limiting, and authentication. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. This is a fully self-contained description for an agent to select and use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the video_url parameter's tracking implications (automatic daily tracking for certain platforms, storage without tracking for others) and by pointing to list_my_campaigns for campaign_id. This goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: for CREATOR API keys to declare publication of a video for a selected campaign. It specifies the action (submit/declare), the resource (posted video URL), and the scope (campaign), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_my_campaigns or create_campaign_order.

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 provides clear context: it is for creator keys, campaigns you are selected on, and explains that campaign_id comes from list_my_campaigns. It also notes the difference between trackable URLs (TikTok/Instagram/YouTube) and others. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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