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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that execution is asynchronous, names the exact status field and target state to poll for, identifies the downstream tool to call, and states the required write scope. Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so this description carries the real behavioral load.

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?

Roughly three clauses, each carrying distinct information (what it does and from which field, async/polling contract, auth requirement), with the action front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 an async mutation with a single trivial parameter and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the input-source branching, that the call returns before work finishes, how to detect completion, what to call next, and the scope requirement.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'id' as a UUID campaign ID at 100% coverage, so there is little left to add. The description confirms the ID refers to a campaign whose type determines the analysis source, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('queue AI analysis of a campaign') plus the concrete outcome ('generate its target profiles'), and further specifies which input field drives the analysis depending on campaign type. An agent can distinguish this from get_campaign or search_campaign_contacts, which are named as separate steps in the flow.

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?

Gives an explicit operational sequence: call this, then poll get_campaign until analysis_status is completed, then call search_campaign_contacts. That is strong when-to-use and next-step routing, but it doesn't state preconditions (e.g., campaign must already exist/be configured) or when to skip analysis.

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