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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, costs, or return values. 'Alias' provides no behavioral detail beyond referring to another tool.

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 description is very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. While the one-line alias pointer is compact, it lacks enough substance to be considered appropriately sized.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and meaningful parameter descriptions, the description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot determine what buying a campaign entails, what inputs are required, or what the tool's behavior is.

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 input schema lists required fields placementId and budgetCredits but no property descriptions. The description adds no parameter semantics, only directing the agent to create_campaign. This does not explain what those fields mean or how to format them.

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?

The description only says 'Alias of create_campaign,' which does not state what the tool does (e.g., purchasing a campaign). It names another tool but lacks a concrete verb and resource description, so the purpose is indirect and not distinguishable.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use buy_campaign versus alternatives. Merely calling it an alias of create_campaign implies equivalence but does not explain the intended use case, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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