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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it returns procedural guidance (screens, buttons, fields) rather than data, it makes no changes itself, and the execution must be completed through cotlet_browser_* tools because AestheticsPro publishes no public API. That access-path explanation is real value the annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose and the no-side-effects statement are front-loaded, which is good. But the final sentence on Enterprise pricing ($350/month) and the "checked 11 Nov 2026" date is verbose justification whose only useful payload is 'there is no self-serve public API'; it could be compressed to a clause.

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?

The description explains the return format and the follow-up execution path, which is complete for output expectations. The remaining gap is that a zero-parameter tool gives the agent no stated way to convey which campaign, audience, or offer it should draft, and the description never explains whether that context comes from conversation or is assumed.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Draft outreach campaign with AI") and then adds the crucial behavioral clarification that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It distinguishes itself from action-performing tools by stating it "opens nothing by itself," though it never explicitly contrasts itself with nearby siblings like customize_outreach_campaign or draft_client_communication_with_kai.

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 gives follow-up guidance ("then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AestheticsPro Cloud Browser"), which tells the agent what to do after this call. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus the other outreach-related siblings, leaving the agent to infer when drafting with AI is preferred over customizing an existing campaign.

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