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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond by explaining that can_launch predicts whether activate_campaign will work, that non-ok checks say what to fix, that blocking ones stop the launch, and the Claude web/desktop review-card behavior. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

The paragraph is information-dense and front-loads the review's contents before the usage ordering and UI note. Every clause carries meaning, though the run-on inventory of contents is slightly heavy and could be tightened.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly (can_launch, checks, blocking semantics). It also covers the draft-workflow prerequisite and platform-specific behavior, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Campaign UUID - get from list_campaigns'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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+resource ('review a campaign before it sends') and then enumerates exactly what the review covers: ordered steps, senders, waiting contacts, schedule/volume, and launch checks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_campaign_stats and preview_campaign.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('before activate_campaign and again after fixing anything') and gives a conditional prerequisite: 'If campaign.is_draft is true, call complete_campaign before activate_campaign.' It names the alternative tools and the ordering conditions, leaving nothing to inference.

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