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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing non-idempotency, side effects (LLM analysis plus up to 2 replay crafts), expected latency ('may take tens of seconds'), and failure conditions. This gives the agent a realistic model of what invoking the tool entails.

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?

Four concise, information-dense sentences with no filler. The primary action and key differentiator are front-loaded, followed by failure conditions, behavioral warnings, and a clear follow-up instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains when to trigger, what happens during execution, how long it may take, what can cause failure, and exactly where to retrieve the result. An agent has enough context to call this 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?

The only parameter, workspaceId, is already fully documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. It does not go beyond the schema, but the schema carries the full burden adequately.

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 action ('Run a draft checkup for the workspace now'), identifies the exact resource scope, and explains how it differs from the automatic daily sweep. It also names the companion read tool, campaignstack_get_draft_checkup, making the tool's role in the workflow clear.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: when an immediate checkup is needed, bypassing the automatic thresholds. It also gives exclusion conditions (pending proposal, fewer than 3 recent drafts) and points to the correct alternative for reading results, campaignstack_get_draft_checkup.

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