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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces the non-executing nature by listing what it does not do (upload, checkout, charge, publish) and platform gating. This adds valuable context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover return format or downstream effects.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then systematically covers scope, goals, platform states, and exclusions. It is somewhat dense but each sentence adds informational value; no major 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 13-parameter planning tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description provides good conceptual coverage but leaves many parameter semantics and expected outputs unexplained. It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need to fill.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, but it only loosely maps to parameters (objective, audience intent, CTA, conversion event, creative treatment, platforms). It gives conceptual categories without explaining many of the 13 parameters such as campaign_key, caption_mode, canonical_url, commerce_offer_id, or source_package_key.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: plan an authorized source package as a non-executing cross-platform campaign with named components. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_clip_capabilities and plan_clip_job, though it doesn't name them explicitly. The purpose is understandable without opening the 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?

The description gives a clear context: use for a broad set of campaign goals and names which platforms have execution lanes versus gated/unverified ones. It implies a planning/non-executing use case, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over plan_clip_job or get_clip_capabilities.

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