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 non-obvious behavior beyond that: the tool returns human-readable instructions with screens, buttons and fields, and performs no action itself. It stops short of describing format, length or what happens if no Cloud Browser session exists.

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 operative content is front-loaded and clear in the first two clauses, but the third sentence about the official v3.3 REST API, the resource list and the 'checked 22 Oct 2026' date does not help an agent decide or invoke correctly. Roughly a third of the description is expendable context.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons and fields, with no side effects. It is nearly complete, lacking only prerequisites such as whether a Cloud Browser session must already be open and what the failure mode is.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; 4 is the baseline for a parameterless tool. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 names a specific resource (campaign draft) and then explicitly redefines the operation as returning step-by-step instructions rather than performing it: 'Returns how to do it in Campaign Monitor step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That clarification separates it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools it routes to. The name/title ('Create campaign draft') sets a misleading expectation that the second sentence has to correct, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives a usable workflow: call this, then execute the steps with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling campaign tools such as campaign_monitor_schedule_campaign or campaign_monitor_get_campaign_report, and the closing sentence about Campaign Monitor's REST API and lack of an MCP server is background trivia rather than when-to-use guidance.

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