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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is a legacy alias, which is useful, but gives no information about side effects, permissions, failure modes, or the exact behavior inherited from create_campaign. The alias relationship is helpful but minimal.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key fact ('legacy alias') and adds historical context parenthetically. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy.

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 a low-complexity alias tool, this description is nearly complete: it tells the agent this is a deprecated alias and points to create_campaign as the current tool. It does not explicitly direct the agent to the canonical tool's documentation or address the schema inconsistency, so it loses one point.

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 requires placementId but provides no property definition or description. The description only hints at 'pre-ad-unit naming' and does not explain what placementId means, its format, or how it relates to create_campaign's parameters. The tool name allows inference, but the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a legacy alias of create_campaign, which is a specific verb+resource referent and avoids tautology. It also explains the historical context with 'pre-ad-unit naming'. It does not explicitly say what action the tool performs, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

'Legacy alias' signals that this is a backwards-compatibility shim and implies that create_campaign should be preferred. It names the alternative tool explicitly. It does not provide full when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions, but the deprecation signal is strong.

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