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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine extra context by disclosing that this is a polling endpoint and naming the state conditions under which polling is warranted. The only gap is that the referenced state names ("suggesting", "drafting", "launching") are not defined or mapped to returned fields.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the polling advice, with no filler. The phrasing "how far each got" is informal and forces the agent to infer that it means idea status/progress, a small clarity cost.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with no parameters the surface area is small. The definition covers purpose and polling behavior adequately; the one omission is any hint about result volume or ordering when many ideas are returned.

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, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description adds nothing misleading about inputs.

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?

"List your campaign ideas and how far each got" names a specific verb (List) and resource (campaign ideas) plus the returned status dimension, which cleanly separates it from campaign_ideas_get (single item) among the siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so the differentiation is implied by the plural/list phrasing rather than stated.

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 concrete operational guidance: poll roughly once a minute, and only while "suggesting is true or an idea is drafting or launching." That tells the agent when to call and when to keep calling, but there is no guidance on when to prefer campaign_ideas_get for a single idea or what to do when no ideas exist.

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