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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: it discloses that on an already launched idea, uncontacted recipients outside the new radius are removed, and that the response field removedRecipients counts them. That side effect is not derivable from destructiveHint=false and is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before writing. It stops short of saying what happens on a draft idea or whether the removal is reversible.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the conditional side-effect detail. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 no explanation, and the description still calls out the one non-obvious response field. For a 2-required-parameter setter this is nearly complete; the gaps are the valid radius range and the draft-vs-launched behavioral split.

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 coverage is 50%: ideaId is documented in-schema (including the useful 'from campaign_ideas_list' cross-reference) while radiusMiles has no inline description. The description supplies the meaning of the radius (distance from home city) but omits the 5–100 mile bounds the schema enforces, so it neither fully compensates nor is redundant.

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?

States a specific verb ('set') and a specific resource/attribute ('how many miles around your home city a Maps idea reaches'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic campaign tools. It implies scope ('Maps idea') but never names set_audience as the neighboring configurator, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers this applies to Maps-type ideas and that behavior differs pre- vs post-launch. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or 'use campaign_ideas_set_audience instead for X' guidance against the several adjacent campaign_ideas_* siblings.

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