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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: scheduled_action only contains active scheduled/claimed work, last_scheduled_action holds recent history, and excluded contacts return state='excluded' with no next_tool. This is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs and is not present in the structured annotations.

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 not bloated; each sentence adds a distinct piece of information about state semantics, excluded-contacts behavior, or return contents. Slightly more structure could improve scannability, but there is little wasted wording.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: state values, invitation_status, counts, next_tool, and the distinction between active and historical actions. The agent can correctly understand the result without additional schema information.

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 100%, so the schema already documents campaign_id and limit. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas but does not go further.

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 action ('Inspect') and the resource (campaign readiness and invitation state contact by contact), and enumerates the key returned fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list/contact tools, relying on queue-specific terms like scheduled_action and next_tool to imply the difference.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need per-contact campaign readiness, invitation state, and the next tool for active contacts—but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is named as an alternative.

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