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

The description adds one genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: 'requires write scope,' which tells the agent about an auth requirement. However, it does not say what state the campaign is created in (draft/active), whether it needs an audience or channel before use, or anything about the response. The annotations already establish non-destructive mutation, so the remaining gap is moderate.

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 action and then the scope requirement; no wasted words. It is slightly thin for a create tool with five parameters, but nothing is redundant or buried.

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 full schema coverage and non-destructive annotations, most of the burden is already carried by structured fields. The description could still usefully note the conditional dependency on objective_type for the product_* fields and what a successful creation returns, but it is minimally sufficient to call the tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the objective_type enum and the conditional 'for product_promotion objective' fields. The description adds nothing further about parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage but leaves no added value.

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 ('create a new outreach campaign'), which is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like create_audience or create_target_profile. It does not explicitly contrast with update_campaign or add_campaign_contacts, but the purpose is clear from the name-and-verb pairing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., add_campaign_contacts, update_campaign) and no prerequisites beyond the scope note. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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