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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the campaign is created in Off mode rather than active, and plan/first-campaign checks apply, implying validation failures are possible. It does not describe what is returned or what happens if the checks fail, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The phrasing is somewhat jargon-heavy ("Off mode", "plan and first-campaign setup checks") but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a complex create operation with a nested request object, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotation detail beyond hints. The description omits the return value (e.g., new campaign ID) and gives no guidance on the seven body fields, so an agent cannot confidently populate the request from the definition alone.

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% on a nested body object with seven fields, so the description carries the full burden — yet it only gestures at profile_id ("team profile") and from_email ("connected senders"). It says nothing about sources enum values (podcast/journalist/newsletter), subject_lines, matching_blurb, or custom_instruction, leaving most parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource ("Create a podcast campaign") that is clearly distinct from siblings like create_profile, create_template, and update_campaign. It also flags the resulting state ("in Off mode"), which further separates it from scheduling tools. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 hints at prerequisites (a team profile, connected senders, existing plan, first-campaign setup checks) but never says explicitly when to choose this over update_campaign or when a campaign should instead be created via another path. Usage is implied by the prerequisite mentions rather than spelled out as when/when-not guidance.

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