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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description correctly adds the domain-specific trait that matters: only 'recoverable' in-progress drafts are returned, not created campaigns. It omits secondary behavior such as ordering (e.g., by updatedAt) or result limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return payload and the routing guidance. No filler, and the exclusion of created campaigns is placed after the main statement rather than burying it.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, this covers what an agent needs: what a draft is, which fields identify it, and how to act on the campaignIds. The only small gap is that listing behavior (ordering, pagination, empty-result handling) is not addressed.

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?

There is one parameter (artistId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema alone gives no meaning beyond a UUID format. The description compensates partially by framing the result set as 'an artist's' drafts, implying artistId scopes the listing to a single artist, but it adds nothing about which artist form is accepted or behavior for an invalid/unknown artistId.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'List an artist's in-progress campaign creation drafts.' It explicitly distinguishes this from dynamoi_list_campaigns ('Created campaigns are excluded'), so an agent can separate the two without inspecting either schema.

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?

It states both direction and destination: use the returned campaignIds with dynamoi_smart_campaign_ad_copy or the campaign creation tools to resume setup, and use dynamoi_list_campaigns for finished campaigns. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the named alternative are all present.

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